5 MINUTES AGO: DONALD TRUMP GETS MORE BAD NEWS... SEE MORE.tt
5 MINUTES AGO: DONALD TRUMP GETS MORE BAD NEWS... SEE MORE
WASHINGTON, D.C. — July 10, 2026 — President Donald J. Trump once again found himself at the center of intense global attention this week after unveiling a series of major foreign policy moves during the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, Turkey, held July 8–9.
The announcements immediately ignited widespread media coverage and fierce political debate as the administration rolled out several high-stakes strategic initiatives that could carry major consequences far beyond Washington.
The extraordinary pace of the decisions placed renewed scrutiny on President Trump, whose administration used the summit to signal what officials described as a new and more aggressive phase of America's international security strategy.
One of the most significant announcements involved Ukraine.
The Trump administration approved a license allowing Ukraine to manufacture Patriot air defense missile systems domestically.
Officials said the decision is designed to strengthen Ukraine's ability to protect its cities and critical infrastructure from continuing missile attacks while reducing the need for additional direct U.S. federal spending.
Instead of relying entirely on American production and deliveries, Ukraine would be permitted to manufacture the systems locally under U.S. authorization.
At the same time, the administration announced another major diplomatic shift involving Syria.
The White House formally notified Congress of its intention to remove Syria from the United States' State Sponsor of Terrorism list.
The move triggers the required 45-day congressional notification period and comes following the political transition that took place in Damascus in 2024.
Administration officials argue that removing the designation could help Syria gradually reconnect with international financial markets, attract economic activity, and contribute to broader regional stabilization.
But while Washington was signaling a possible diplomatic opening toward Syria, tensions with Iran moved sharply in the opposite direction.
President Trump declared that the interim ceasefire arrangement with Iran was effectively over following Iranian-backed attacks against commercial shipping operating through the Strait of Hormuz.
The declaration dramatically raised the stakes across the Middle East.
In response to the attacks, President Trump authorized multiple rounds of U.S. military strikes targeting Iranian military facilities and strategic port infrastructure.
The strikes immediately intensified fears of a wider regional confrontation and drew swift attention from governments, military officials, and analysts around the world.
Taken together, the three major decisions — expanding Ukraine's ability to produce Patriot systems, moving to remove Syria from the terrorism list, and launching new military strikes against Iranian targets — quickly became the dominant story of the NATO summit.
Lawmakers, foreign policy experts, and military analysts have since offered sharply different assessments of what these decisions could mean for American national security and the broader balance of power around the world.
Supporters argue that the administration is demonstrating strength while forcing America's partners to take greater responsibility for their own security.
Critics, however, are closely watching whether the rapid series of moves could create new diplomatic and military risks in already unstable regions.
Administration officials insist the decisions are consistent with President Trump's broader "Peace Through Strength" foreign policy doctrine.
According to the White House, the strategy is built around deterrence, military readiness, stronger strategic partnerships, and the expansion of American influence without committing the United States to prolonged direct intervention overseas.
Now, as President Trump returns to Washington following the NATO summit, the focus is beginning to move beyond the dramatic announcements themselves.
The larger question is what happens next.
Officials are preparing for the upcoming Pennsylvania Defense and Innovation Summit, scheduled for July 14–15, where national security, defense manufacturing, military preparedness, and emerging technologies are expected to dominate the agenda.
Meanwhile, debate continues to intensify both in Washington and among America's allies abroad.
Whatever the long-term consequences may be, the decisions announced in Ankara have already emerged as one of the most consequential foreign policy moments of the administration.
And with Ukraine, Syria, and Iran all moving rapidly onto the center of the geopolitical stage, analysts around the world are now watching closely to see how President Trump's latest decisions could reshape America's strategic position in the months ahead.
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.
