Whoopi Goldberg on The View floated the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment against President Donald Trump after his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. Goldberg argued that other countries aren’t laughing at the United States so much as they are concerned for the country’s welfare, noting that Trump’s approach to the war between Russia and Ukraine did not meet what she described as a presidential standard. She said he had an opportunity to do more than he offered and that his remarks were not helpful or presidential.
During the discussion, the co-hosts attempted to name the amendment, and Sonny Hostin finally identified it as the 25th Amendment. Hostin explained that the amendment provides a process for presidential succession if the president is unable to perform the duties of office because of mental or physical incapacity. Goldberg pressed that the question was about competence on an international stage, while Hostin pointed to the broader constitutional framework and the pattern of concern.
Hostin also referenced a claim that Trump had misled the U.N. General Assembly about ending seven wars in hopes of winning a Nobel Peace Prize. The panel debated whether Trump would deserve a Nobel Prize if he were to deliver lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine. Alyssa Farah Griffin offered a contrasting view, welcoming Trump’s stated shift on Ukraine and arguing that if peace were achieved, it could warrant consideration for such an honor.
Context on the 25th Amendment: it lays out how power can be transferred if a president dies, resigns, or is unable to discharge duties due to incapacity. The amendment allows the vice president to assume temporary powers if a majority of the president’s Cabinet and the vice president sign off on the determination of incapacity. There was no indication of any formal move toward invoking the amendment as the show discussed the issue in response to Trump’s UN speech.
While the dialogue reflected a broader national debate about presidential fitness and the optics of diplomacy, the discussion did not indicate any imminent legal action. The conversation comes as observers note the ongoing debate over foreign policy and the possibility that the administration’s framing of Ukraine could influence international perceptions.
