Mandani’s Uganda Honors Netanyahu With Monument
New York City socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s native Uganda has just made things ‘monumentally’ awkward for him.
A new bronze statue honoring Yonatan “Yoni” Netanyahu, the brother of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was unveiled in Uganda earlier this month, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Israeli military operation commonly known as the Raid on Entebbe, or Operation Thunderbolt.
The monument was installed at the former Entebbe Airport terminal, where Israeli commandos carried out the hostage rescue mission in 1976 after an Air France flight was hijacked by armed militants.
The operation, which took place on July 4, 1976, resulted in the rescue of more than 100 hostages who had been held at the Ugandan airport after the plane was diverted there by the hijackers.
Yoni Netanyahu, who commanded the Israeli assault force, was killed during the mission and remains the only Israeli soldier who died in the operation.
The hijackers diverted the Air France flight, which was traveling from Tel Aviv to Paris with 246 passengers on board, to Uganda, then ruled by President Idi Amin. The militants demanded a $5 million ransom and the release of dozens of imprisoned Palestinian militants.
Israel responded by launching a military operation that rescued 102 of the 106 hostages being held at Entebbe Airport. The mission was led by Lt. Col. Yonatan “Yoni” Netanyahu, the older brother of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu was the only Israeli soldier killed during the operation after he was struck by sniper fire on July 4, 1976.
The raid later inspired several films, including a 1977 movie adaptation.
The statue honoring Netanyahu was unveiled on Aug. 1 at the Old Entebbe Terminal during a ceremony attended by senior Ugandan military officials.
According to local reports, the event highlighted the long-standing security relationship and diplomatic ties between Uganda and Israel.
Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and holds both U.S. and Ugandan citizenship, moved to the United States at age 7 after spending part of his childhood in South Africa.
Mamdani has drawn criticism over his comments about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, including statements suggesting that Netanyahu could face arrest if he traveled to New York.
He has also publicly referred to the Israeli leader as a “war criminal” in social media posts and video messages.
“The Mamdani family must be plotzing,” joked one “X” user.
“I think we call it poetic justice. I have no doubt this makes the mayor lose sleep, and he hates every moment of it. Too bad,” said Dov Hikind, former Brooklyn Democratic assemblyman and founder of Americans Against Antisemitism, who, like many in Israel and the diaspora, named his own son Yoni after the fallen commando.
“It’s very personal for me – he was a hero of the Jewish people and was ultimately dealing with what Israel is dealing with today: terrorism,” Hikind added, per the New York Post.
Uganda’s relationship with Israel has changed significantly since the era of Amin, whose government maintained an adversarial relationship with Israel during the 1970s.
In February, Mahmood Mamdani, a Columbia University professor and the father of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, published “Slow Poison: Idi Amin, Yoweri Museveni and the Making of the Ugandan State,” a book that examines Uganda’s political development under both leaders.
In the book, Mahmood Mamdani argues that Amin’s rise and rule cannot be understood in isolation and explores the role that foreign powers, including Israel, played in shaping Uganda’s political landscape, which is a nonsensical claim.
“Despite accusing Israel of Idi Amin’s rise to power, Mamdani ignores how Amin allowed, and even supported, the hijacking and attack on Jewish and Israeli passengers on Air France Flight 139,” wrote reviewer Jonathan Beloff.
NEWSOM CALLS FOR 25TH AMENDMENT TO BE INVOKED AGAINST TRUMP
Newsom Calls Trump Speech a “25th Amendment Moment” — But Removing His Powers Would Require the People Closest to Him
Gavin Newsom used one of the most extraordinary phrases available in American politics.
After Donald Trump delivered a prime-time address about election security on July 16, the California governor said the country had just witnessed a “25th Amendment moment.”
That phrase immediately raises a dramatic possibility:
Could a president actually lose the powers of his office without impeachment, a criminal conviction or an election?
Constitutionally, yes.
Politically, the path is far more difficult than the headline makes it sound.
And the first person who would have to turn against Trump is not Gavin Newsom, a Democratic governor, or even a Democratic leader in Congress.
It is Vice President JD Vance.
Newsom’s Remark Came After Trump’s Election Speech
Trump’s July 16 address focused heavily on election security and the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden.
The president announced the release of declassified intelligence documents that he said demonstrated serious vulnerabilities in the U.S. election system and foreign interference, particularly involving China. The White House portrayed the material as evidence that important intelligence had previously been suppressed.
But independent reporting complicated that interpretation.
Reuters reported that Trump’s allegations about Chinese interference conflicted with earlier U.S. intelligence findings, which did not conclude that foreign actors altered the result of the 2020 election. FactCheck.org similarly found that the material released by the White House did not demonstrate widespread election fraud or show that foreign actors changed vote totals.
Newsom responded the next day.
“This is a 25th Amendment moment,” he said, while describing Trump’s remarks as the “ramblings of a mad king.”
He also accused Trump of attempting to undermine confidence in the 2026 midterm elections and urged Americans to turn out in November.
Other Democrats also raised the 25th Amendment after the speech.
That made Newsom’s reaction politically explosive.
But calling for the amendment is one thing.
Actually using it is something completely different.
The 25th Amendment Does Not Start With Congress
The section at the center of this controversy is Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
Its language is unusually specific.
The vice president and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments — generally the Cabinet — would have to submit a written declaration to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House stating that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.
Once that declaration is transmitted, the vice president immediately assumes those powers as Acting President.
That means Gavin Newsom cannot invoke Section 4.
A Democratic governor cannot do it.
The speaker of the House cannot simply do it.
And Congress cannot begin the ordinary Section 4 process on its own.
The key political actors would be Vance and members of Trump’s own administration.
That is the first reason Newsom’s demand has virtually no immediate path forward.
There is currently no public indication that Vance and a majority of Trump’s Cabinet are preparing such a declaration.
Without them, the process does not begin.
Then Comes the Constitutional Twist
There is another part of the 25th Amendment that often disappears from viral posts.
Section 4 is not simply a vote to permanently remove a president.
It is a mechanism for dealing with presidential inability.
If the vice president and Cabinet make the initial declaration, the vice president takes over presidential powers.
But the president can respond by declaring that no inability exists.
At that point, Vance and the Cabinet would have four days to reaffirm their position.
Only then would Congress face the decisive confrontation.
And the threshold is enormous.
Congress would have to determine by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate that the president remains unable to discharge the duties of office.
If that threshold is not reached, the president resumes his powers.
That is an extraordinarily demanding standard.
In fact, if the president contests the declaration, Section 4 ultimately requires two-thirds support in both chambers, while impeachment requires a simple majority in the House followed by two-thirds of senators present for conviction.
And there is another remarkable fact:
Section 4 has never been used. Reuters noted earlier this year that the involuntary provision has never been activated.
That alone illustrates how extraordinary Newsom’s suggestion really is.
Why the Political Math Makes It Even Harder
The current balance of power makes the scenario even more remote.
Republicans control both houses of Congress, and Trump remains the central figure in the Republican Party.
For a contested Section 4 attempt to succeed, a significant number of Republican lawmakers would ultimately have to join Democrats in voting against a Republican president.
But even that would happen only after Vance and a majority of Trump’s Cabinet had already taken the far more dramatic first step.
In other words, the constitutional chain begins with something close to an internal revolt inside Trump’s own administration.
Congress comes afterward.
Reuters reached essentially the same conclusion when 25th Amendment discussion resurfaced earlier in 2026, describing an effort against Trump as politically implausible given the current alignment of the vice presidency, Cabinet and Congress.
That does not make the amendment meaningless.
It explains why Section 4 exists for truly extraordinary circumstances.
The Bigger Question Is What “Unable” Actually Means
This is where the political argument becomes much more difficult.
The Constitution does not provide a detailed medical checklist explaining exactly when a president becomes “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office.
That gives Section 4 flexibility.
It could potentially address severe physical incapacity or another extraordinary situation that prevents a president from functioning.
But it also makes the provision politically sensitive.
An opposition politician may describe behavior they consider reckless, erratic or dangerous as evidence that a president is incapable of serving.
Supporters of the president may view the exact same demand as an attempt to use a constitutional incapacity mechanism to overturn the result of an election because opponents dislike the president’s conduct.
That is precisely why the vice president and Cabinet play such a central role.
Newsom can argue that Trump is unfit.
Newsom cannot make the constitutional determination himself.
And Newsom Has Another Audience
There is also a political story underneath the constitutional fight.
Newsom has increasingly raised his national profile as Democrats begin looking toward the 2028 presidential election.
Recent campaign-style appearances outside California have intensified speculation that he may seek the Democratic presidential nomination, although he has not formally launched a campaign.
His confrontations with Trump therefore operate on two levels.
They allow Newsom to challenge conduct he says threatens democratic institutions.
But they also demonstrate to Democratic voters what a potential Newsom-versus-Trump political style would look like.
That does not prove Newsom raised the 25th Amendment solely for electoral reasons.
But it does mean the statement can have political value even when the constitutional odds of Vance and Trump’s Cabinet acting on it are extremely low.
Newsom does not need Section 4 to be activated for the phrase “25th Amendment moment” to accomplish something.
The phrase itself questions Trump’s fitness for office.
The Real Battlefield Is Probably November
And this may be the biggest twist in the story.
Newsom’s own response quickly moved away from constitutional procedure and toward something far more realistic:
Voting.
He urged Americans to mobilize for November.
Trump himself is now attempting to make the 2026 midterms a referendum on his presidency even though his own name is not on the ballot. Republicans are fighting to preserve control of Congress, while Democrats are targeting the House and an increasingly competitive Senate map.
A Democratic takeover of Congress would not remove Trump from the presidency.
But it could dramatically restrict his legislative agenda, expand congressional investigations and transform the final two years of his term.
That is why Newsom’s statement works on two different levels.
The 25th Amendment creates the dramatic headline.
The midterms create the realistic political mechanism.
For now, there is no activated Section 4 process.
There is no public evidence that Vice President Vance and a majority of Trump’s Cabinet are preparing to declare him unable to serve.
And Gavin Newsom has no constitutional authority to start that process himself.
But the remark still matters.
It shows how far the argument over Trump’s conduct and fitness has escalated.
So the real question is not whether Gavin Newsom can remove Donald Trump.
He cannot.
The question is whether Newsom’s argument becomes persuasive enough to influence the people who actually hold political power —
first millions of voters in November,
and only in an extraordinary constitutional crisis, JD Vance and the Cabinet officials who would have to decide whether the 25th Amendment becomes something more than a political warning.
