Political figures urge Vance to replace Trump as president

A surprising and controversial political suggestion has sparked debate in Washington and beyond, after a prominent conservative voice publicly called for a dramatic shift in leadership. On March 22, journalist Scott McConnell urged Vice President JD Vance to consider invoking the Twenty Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to remove Donald Trump from office.

McConnell, the founding editor of The American Conservative, made the remarks in a post on X (formerly Twitter), offering what he described as strategic advice rather than a formal political proposal. In his message, he suggested that Vance publicly support a transition of power, name a bipartisan running mate such as Chris Murphy, and commit to not running in the 2028 election. According to McConnell, such a move could be framed as a necessary step for national stability.

The suggestion immediately raised eyebrows, not only because of its boldness but also because of the extraordinary constitutional mechanism it referenced. The 25th Amendment allows for the transfer of presidential power if a sitting president is deemed unable to carry out the duties of the office. Historically, it has been used in limited and specific circumstances, making any public call for its use highly unusual—especially from within a president’s own ideological camp.

McConnell’s comments appear to be closely tied to growing unease over the Trump administration’s handling of escalating tensions with Iran. A review of his recent statements shows consistent opposition to the conflict. In earlier posts, he argued that Trump had “destroyed his own movement” by initiating military strikes, reflecting a broader concern among some conservatives about the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

Notably, McConnell is not alone in expressing skepticism about the conflict. High-profile figures within Trump’s political base, including Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, have also voiced strong opposition to military action against Iran. Their criticism highlights a growing divide within the president’s core supporters—commonly referred to as the MAGA movement—over issues of war and international engagement.

Reports have also suggested that Vice President Vance himself may harbor reservations about the conflict. However, he has largely avoided addressing the issue directly in public. When questioned by reporters about his private discussions with the president, Vance declined to reveal details, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality in national security matters. In a pointed response, he remarked that disclosing such conversations would not only be inappropriate but could also carry serious consequences.

Despite the internal divisions, polling data presents a complex picture. According to a survey reported by Politico and conducted by the London-based firm Public First, a significant portion of Trump’s 2024 supporters initially backed the strikes against Iran. The poll found that 81% of self-identified MAGA voters and 61% of non-MAGA Trump voters approved of the decision at the time.

However, broader public opinion appears far less supportive. A separate poll conducted by CBS News and YouGov revealed that 60% of Americans oppose the conflict, while only 40% support it. Additionally, 57% of respondents believe the war is going “somewhat badly” or “very badly” for the country. These numbers suggest that while initial support may have existed among certain groups, overall sentiment is shifting as the situation evolves.

Economic concerns are also beginning to play a role in shaping public opinion. As the potential financial impact of the conflict becomes clearer, analysts warn that voter attitudes could change further—particularly if the war leads to rising costs or broader economic instability.

Against this backdrop, McConnell’s proposal raises an important question: is invoking the 25th Amendment even a realistic possibility? In practical terms, such a move would face enormous political and constitutional hurdles. It would require the support of the vice president and a majority of the president’s cabinet, followed by potential challenges in Congress. Given the current political landscape and Trump’s continued backing within his party, such an outcome appears highly unlikely.

Nevertheless, the mere suggestion underscores the level of tension surrounding the administration’s decisions. It reflects a moment in which political norms are being tested and where even traditionally aligned voices are willing to entertain extraordinary measures.

As the conflict with Iran continues and public opinion evolves, the pressure on the administration may intensify. Whether that leads to policy changes, deeper divisions, or further political drama remains to be seen. For now, McConnell’s remarks serve as a striking reminder of how quickly the conversation can shift in times of uncertainty—and how even the most unlikely scenarios can enter the national debate.