Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Is Pritzker Right? Is It Time To Invoke the 25th Amendment Against Trump?

Opinion

Is Pritzker Right? Is It Time To Invoke the 25th Amendment Against Trump?

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker Vs. US President Donald Trump

AI generated picture

CHICAGO — Illinois Governor JB Pritzker ignited a wave of political reaction this week after publicly calling for the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office, citing concerns over his mental fitness and inflammatory rhetoric targeting American cities.

Pitzker condemned Trump’s recent speech at Quantico, Virginia, where the president suggested using cities like Chicago as “training grounds for our military” and threatened action against “the enemy within.”


“It appears that Donald Trump not only has dementia set in, but he’s copying tactics of [Russian President] Vladimir Putin,” Pritzker said. “Sending troops into cities, thinking that that’s some sort of proving ground for war, or that indeed there’s some sort of internal war going on in the United States, is just, frankly, inane, and I’m concerned for his health. There is something genuinely wrong with this man, and the 25th Amendment ought to be invoked”.

By any measure of democratic stability, the recent rhetoric and behavior of President Donald Trump should alarm every American. When a sitting president refers to U.S. cities as “training grounds for our military,” we are no longer debating policy—we are confronting a crisis of fitness. Governor Pritzker’s bold call to invoke the 25th Amendment is not only justified, it’s overdue.

Other prominent voices echoed the governor’s remarks. Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) posted a blunt message on social media: “25TH AMENDMENT!” following Trump’s Quantico address.

Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich also weighed in, writing in a Tuesday editorial that Trump is “showing growing signs of dementia” and is “increasingly unhinged.” Reich cited Trump’s promotion of an AI-generated video about magical healing beds and his decision to deploy troops to Portland based on outdated footage from Fox News. “He’s 79 years old with a family history of dementia. He could well be going nuts,” Reich warned.

This is not political theater. It is a constitutional safeguard. The 25th Amendment exists precisely for moments like this—when the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. It is not a partisan tool, but a mechanism to protect the republic from instability, erratic behavior, and cognitive decline that threatens national security.

Critics will argue that invoking the 25th Amendment is an extreme measure. But what is more extreme—removing a president who threatens cities with military force, or allowing such threats to go unchecked? What is more dangerous—questioning a leader’s fitness, or ignoring clear signs of cognitive decline and erratic behavior?

Pritzker’s leadership in this moment is both courageous and necessary. He is not merely defending Illinois; he is defending the integrity of American democracy. His invocation of the 25th Amendment is a call to action for Cabinet members, lawmakers, and civic leaders to prioritize the country’s well-being over political loyalty.

This is not about ideology. It is about stability, accountability, and the rule of law. The president’s words and actions have consequences. They embolden extremists, undermine public trust, and destabilize communities already grappling with economic and social challenges. When Trump speaks of “the enemy within,” he is not uniting the country—he is sowing division and fear.

Governor Pritzker’s stance reminds us that leadership is not about silence or calculation. It is about moral clarity. It is about recognizing when the line between political disagreement and constitutional crisis has been crossed. That line is behind us.

The 25th Amendment is not a relic of the past. It is a living provision, designed to protect the nation from precisely this kind of danger. It is time for those in power to heed Pritzker’s call. The stakes are too high for hesitation. America deserves a president who governs with reason, not rage; with clarity, not confusion.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.

Read More

Varying speech bubbles.​ Dialogue. Conversations.

Examining the 2025 episodes that challenged democratic institutions and highlighted the stakes for truth, accountability, and responsible public leadership.

Getty Images, DrAfter123

Why I Was ‘Diagnosed’ With Trump Derangement Syndrome

After a year spent writing columns about President Donald Trump, a leader who seems intent on testing every norm, value, and standard of decency that supports our democracy, I finally did what any responsible citizen might do: I went to the doctor to see if I had "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

I told my doctor about my symptoms: constant worry about cruelty in public life, repeated anger at attacks on democratic institutions, and deep anxiety over leaders who treat Americans as props or enemies. After running tests, he gave me his diagnosis with a straight face: "You are, indeed, highly focused on abnormal behavior. But standing up for what is right is excellent for your health and essential for the health of the country."

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less