Whoopi Goldberg calls for 25th Amendment removal of Trump after UN speech, sparking backlash

A high-profile moment in U.S. political commentary unfolded on television Wednesday as Whoopi Goldberg urged invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office after his United Nations General Assembly remarks. On The View, the longtime co-host suggested that world leaders are closely watching the United States and are not convinced Trump is fit to lead, adding that she is worried about the impression he left at the U.N. Goldberg’s remarks came after Trump delivered a long speech at the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, a setting that often amplifies international scrutiny of American leaders.

Goldberg told viewers that world leaders are ‘really concerned for’ the United States under Trump. ‘He had a chance to deliver much more than what he did, and they don’t consider him to be serious anymore. I’m worried.’ She then floated the 25th Amendment as a possible remedy, noting that the provision is designed to address a president who cannot fulfill the duties of the office. She said the question of whether a president is capable of carrying out the job has historically featured in discussions about leadership, and she tied that concern to Trump’s performance at the U.N.

She floated the 25th Amendment as a potential remedy, saying that ‘they questioned Biden’s competence’ and that if Biden had acted similarly, she would have said ‘Take him.’ This was not presidential and this was not helpful, she added. The remarks touched off a swift wave of online commentary, with supporters of Trump defending him and opponents accusing Goldberg of overstepping the bounds of a talk show.

Reaction on social media quickly followed, with critics and supporters weighing in as clips of Goldberg’s comments circulated. One post criticized the show for what it described as a selective memory, saying, ‘She was curiously silent during the dementia years of 2021 – 2025.’ Another user argued that the 25th Amendment is not a tool for political disagreement and not applicable to different policy perspectives from opposing parties. ‘The 25th amendment has nothing to do with disagreeing with the other party, and she had nothing to say about a mentally incapacitated Biden,’ said another.

The 25th Amendment, adopted in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, provides for presidential succession and procedures for removing a president who is unable to perform the duties of the office. In practice, invoking the amendment requires a majority of the president’s cabinet (or another body designated by law) or a similar mechanism to determine incapacity, followed by a congressional process. The latest public mention of the amendment in this context underscores a broader debate about the limits of constitutional tools in addressing concerns about a sitting president’s fitness, a debate that is often more about political theater than about immediate constitutional replacement.

Trump’s UN appearance had provided ample material for both political contestation and defense. A segment of critics argued that Goldberg’s comments crossed a line for a talk show host, while others framed the discussion as a necessary, if controversial, reminder of constitutional checks and balances. Some observers noted the difference between criticizing presidential behavior in a diplomatic setting and advocating for removal through constitutional mechanisms, arguing that the latter carries significant real-world consequences for governance, national security, and international credibility.

In the days since, public interest has only intensified as pundits, lawmakers, and citizens weigh the implications of discussing removal procedures in the heat of an ongoing political campaign. The discussion also punctuates the broader national conversation about executive leadership, accountability, and the appropriate role of media figures in shaping or reframing debates about constitutional remedies. As the political climate remains highly charged, analysts say it will take careful fact-checking and precise constitutional framing to distinguish legitimate concerns from the kind of rhetoric that can deepen partisan divides.

With the controversy still unfolding, The View and Goldberg’s broader audience will likely continue to watch how political commentators navigate questions about presidential fitness, constitutional mechanisms, and the proper boundaries between discourse and policy. The United States heads into a period where domestic debates about leadership intersect with international perceptions, and where the use of constitutional tools remains a topic of intense public scrutiny. As events develop, observers will be watching not only for the outcome of any legal or constitutional process, but also for the way such discussions influence voter sentiment, party dynamics, and the broader health of American democratic norms.