Constitutional fitness is under scrutiny as Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) has publicly advocated for a 25th Amendment review of former President Donald Trump. Waters’ call, made during an August 30, 2025, appearance on MSNBC’s “The Weeknight” and reported through August 31, 2025, centers on concerns regarding Trump’s capacity to hold office, particularly in light of his removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Waters’ Concerns Over Presidential Authority
Waters’ demand stems from Trump’s decision to remove Lisa Cook from her position as a Federal Reserve Governor. Waters believes this action represents an abuse of power that threatens both economic stability and democratic principles. According to Waters, Trump’s actions could “upend the entire economy,” potentially allowing him to manipulate financial decisions for personal gain. She characterized his behavior as “extraordinarily dangerous” and indicative of a “dictator” aiming to control the economy, as reported by MEAWW News.
The congresswoman emphasized the crucial importance of the Federal Reserve’s independence, asserting that Trump is actively working to undermine it. Her statements, amplified across various news outlets including Newsweek and Fox News, highlight a growing concern among some Democrats regarding the limits of executive power and the potential for presidential overreach.
The Cook Controversy
The core of the controversy lies in Trump’s removal of Lisa Cook, with Trump accusing her of misrepresenting mortgage information, as detailed by The Right Scoop. Cook denies these allegations and has initiated legal proceedings against Trump in the District of Columbia. Her lawsuit claims that her firing was unlawful and unprecedented, a dispute that could potentially escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to AInvest. This legal battle adds another layer of complexity to the already tense relationship between the White House and the Federal Reserve.
25th Amendment Call: A Political Reality Check
Waters’ call for a 25th Amendment review represents a significant escalation in the criticism leveled by Democrats against Trump’s management of the Federal Reserve and his broader exercise of executive authority. The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, deals with presidential disability and succession. Section 4 allows for the removal of a president by the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet if they determine the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office.
Despite acknowledging the unlikelihood of her recommendation being acted upon by Trump’s cabinet members, whom she described as “sycophants,” Waters stressed the urgency of addressing what she sees as immediate threats to American democracy and financial stability. Her remarks, documented by Rolling Out, underscore the deep partisan divisions surrounding Trump’s presidency and the ongoing debate over the balance of power between the executive branch and independent institutions.
Independence of the Federal Reserve
The independence of the Federal Reserve is a cornerstone of the U.S. financial system, designed to insulate monetary policy decisions from short-term political pressures. This independence allows the Fed to make decisions based on economic data and long-term goals, rather than political considerations. Waters’ concerns reflect a fear that Trump’s actions could compromise this independence, potentially leading to instability in the financial markets. The Mirror reported on the widespread anxiety among economists regarding the potential ramifications of political interference in the Federal Reserve’s operations.
The Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, as set by Congress, is to promote maximum employment and stable prices. Achieving these goals requires careful management of interest rates and other monetary policy tools. If political considerations were to influence these decisions, it could lead to suboptimal outcomes for the economy, such as inflation or recession. Waters’ warning highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of this crucial institution.
The Broader Implications
The situation underscores the deep-seated tensions surrounding the independence of key financial institutions and the limits of presidential authority. Trump’s actions, and the subsequent response from figures like Maxine Waters, reflect a broader debate about the role of government in the economy and the extent to which the executive branch should be able to influence independent agencies. The YouTube coverage of Waters’ MSNBC appearance further amplified these concerns, reaching a wide audience and sparking further discussion.
The legal challenge initiated by Lisa Cook adds another layer of uncertainty to the situation. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could have significant implications for the future of presidential appointments and the ability of the president to remove officials from independent agencies. The outcome of this legal battle will likely shape the balance of power between the executive branch and other institutions for years to come.
Ultimately, Representative Waters’ call for a 25th Amendment review highlights the ongoing concerns about presidential overreach and the importance of safeguarding the independence of institutions like the Federal Reserve. While the likelihood of such a review may be slim, her actions serve as a reminder of the checks and balances that are essential to American democracy and the need for vigilance in protecting them.
