The type of letter appeared to be less presidential diplomacy and more of an internet joke. Remarkably unconcerned with geopolitical complexity, Donald Trump addressed a note to the prime minister of Norway that somehow connected his growing threats regarding Greenland to his inability to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Notably, Denmark, not Norway, owns Greenland, and Norway’s government does not control the Nobel Committee. Nevertheless, Trump’s fixation on emotive grievances as foreign policy remained unabated.
It was not a comedy, according to Rachel Maddow. She presented it calmly but incisively as something darker: the most recent in a series of more unpredictable actions that bring back an awkward question regarding the 25th Amendment that many Americans hoped they would never have to consider again.
Previously infamously obscure until 2017, the amendment has now appeared frequently in Maddow’s reporting. While others made light of Trump’s geopolitical blunders or his painted maps with Venezuela and Greenland shaded in red, white, and blue, Maddow focused on a much more serious topic: Is the president mentally capable of performing his duties?
| Name | Rachel Maddow |
|---|---|
| Occupation | Television Host, Political Commentator, Author |
| Show | The Rachel Maddow Show (MS NOW, formerly MSNBC) |
| Known For | Progressive political analysis, coverage of Trump-era politics |
| Notable Moment | Coverage of renewed 25th Amendment talk after Trump’s Greenland controversy |
| External Link | MaddowBlog – ms.now |
That question was not the first time she had raised it. Maddow chronicled the slow-motion constitutional breakdown in real-time during the anxious hours following January 6, going into great detail about the legal procedures that permit a vice president and cabinet majority to declare a president unfit. She articulated its potential so well that it lingered even though that moment never materialized.
However, this time, violent insurrection was not the trigger. It was a mix of public outbursts, imagined plots, and shattered egos. It landed in a different way.
Senator Ed Markey, who notably echoed Maddow’s tone, demanded that the cabinet and Vice President JD Vance invoke the 25th Amendment in response to Trump’s threats on European allies. His constitutionally based argument matched Maddow’s subtle hints that checks and balances need to be reestablished when action is driven by fantasy.
A number of lawmakers responded with obvious alarm, particularly Democrats like Brian Schatz and Chris Murphy. Murphy referred to Trump’s remarks as “the ramblings of a man who has lost touch with reality,” while Schatz termed the president’s perspective “warped.” Instead of being partisan gimmicks, these were senior lawmakers’ unusually candid admissions of fragility.
Maddow’s coverage was notable not for alarmism but for the exact, almost surgical manner in which she dismantled the layers of constitutional rationale. She emphasized how personal uneasiness may turn into global disruption by drawing attention to Trump’s emotional reasoning—retaliation for not receiving a medal.
Maddow played up Trump’s leaked message to Macron and showed the altered map he posted online halfway through the episode. “It was less ridiculous than it was strategic,” she said, referring to a guy actively changing America’s foreign policy while using theatricality to direct public attention.
At that point, I started to wonder how many more of similar instances would occur before the question of “fitness for office” was resolved by the constitution.
Reaction from throughout the world gave the situation a unique weight. The Danish parliament’s deputy speaker, Lars-Christian Brask, publicly called on the US Congress to “take control” of American leadership, describing Trump’s actions as “mad and erratic.” Foreign officials rarely venture into the constitutional health of another nation, but in this case, the stakes appeared to be too great to keep quiet.
Maddow stayed focused on precedent and procedure because he was never one for speculative spirals. She reminded the audience that the 25th Amendment is purposefully difficult to invoke, requiring bravery, unity, and a unique determination to face authority head-on. However, she also pointed out that its fundamental structure foresees this kind of situation: a president who loses touch with reality while surrounded by dormant enablers.
Her show’s subtext, which was occasionally explicit and other times only suggested, was not limited to Trump. It was about the structure of democratic stability and the duty of government employees to keep it from deteriorating. She took the discussion beyond partisanship by focusing on institutional responsibility rather than individual character.
Maddow didn’t find this to be about Trump being ridiculous or disrespectful. It concerned whether a commander-in-chief continues to behave within the common bounds of law, reality, and diplomacy. Her measured but uncompromising tone conveyed a broader uneasiness: What happens if a president ceases acting as though those boundaries exist?
She also called attention to the cabinet’s silence. None of the president’s closest advisors had openly questioned his hold on reality, despite worldwide shame and public terror. Perhaps the most incriminating indication was not the Greenland letters per se, but rather the lack of response from those with the legal authority to take action.
A last frame of Trump’s social media persona, with Canada, Greenland, and Venezuela donning American flags, was shown to viewers as the episode came to a close. It was ridiculous. It also said a lot, though.
Maddow stated unequivocally that constitutional protections are in place for a purpose. They’re not merely museum exhibits, either. We might have to dust them up again, but they are tools of last resort.
