The latest example of this delicate balance between fervor and accuracy emerged from a television appearance that was intended to deliver a serious constitutional argument about presidential fitness for office. Instead, the segment became a case study in how a fundamental error can overshadow substantive policy concerns and provide ammunition to political opponents eager to question a critic’s competence.
What unfolded reveals not only the challenges facing lawmakers who must navigate complex constitutional processes while under intense media pressure, but also the broader implications of how constitutional illiteracy can undermine legitimate political discourse in an era when every mistake is amplified and weaponized by opposing political forces.
Representative Maxine Waters of California stepped before MSNBC cameras on Friday with a clear mission: to articulate her concerns about President Donald Trump’s fitness for office and call for constitutional action to address what she perceives as dangerous presidential behavior. The veteran congresswoman, known for her passionate advocacy and willingness to take strong stands against policies she opposes, intended to make a serious constitutional argument about the limits of presidential power.
Waters’ appearance was prompted by Trump’s recent decision to dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a move that the California Democrat characterized as both economically dangerous and potentially self-serving. Her concerns about the dismissal centered on its potential impact on monetary policy, interest rates, and the broader economy, issues that fall squarely within her expertise as a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee.
“It is time to call for Article [Amendment] 25 of the Constitution of the United States of America to determine his unfitness, to determine that something’s wrong with this president,” Waters declared during the appearance. “And I would suggest that we move very aggressively to talk about the danger to this country and to our democracy and not play around with this because this is absolutely one of the most destructive things that this president could do.”
However, Waters’ passionate plea was immediately undermined by a fundamental error that would overshadow her substantive concerns about economic policy. By referring to “Article 25” instead of the “25th Amendment,” she demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of constitutional structure that provided her critics with easy ammunition while detracting from her intended message about presidential accountability.
The mistake Waters made reveals a fundamental confusion about the structure and organization of the U.S. Constitution that is particularly problematic for a member of Congress who has sworn an oath to support and defend that document. The Constitution consists of seven articles that establish the basic framework of government, followed by 27 amendments that modify or add to the original text.
Article 25 simply does not exist in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution contains only seven articles: Article I establishes the legislative branch, Article II creates the executive branch, Article III establishes the judicial branch, Article IV governs relationships between states, Article V outlines the amendment process, Article VI establishes federal supremacy, and Article VII addresses ratification.
The 25th Amendment, which Waters clearly intended to reference, was ratified in 1967 and provides mechanisms for addressing presidential incapacity or inability to serve. Section 4 of the amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of cabinet members to declare a president unable to discharge presidential duties, effectively removing the president from power until the situation is resolved.
This distinction matters because it reflects basic constitutional literacy that voters rightfully expect from their elected representatives. When lawmakers demonstrate fundamental confusion about the documents they’ve sworn to uphold, it raises questions about their competence to participate in complex constitutional processes and undermines their credibility when making serious arguments about governmental power and accountability.
Understanding what Waters was attempting to invoke requires examining the 25th Amendment’s actual provisions and the high bar it sets for removing a president from office. The amendment addresses four scenarios related to presidential succession and incapacity, with Section 4 being the most relevant to Waters’ apparent concerns.
Section 4 allows the Vice President and a majority of principal cabinet officers to declare in writing to congressional leadership that the President is unable to discharge presidential duties. This declaration immediately transfers presidential powers to the Vice President as Acting President, but it also triggers a process that allows the President to contest the determination.
If the President contests the incapacity determination, Congress must decide the issue by two-thirds vote in both chambers within 21 days. This extraordinarily high threshold ensures that the 25th Amendment cannot be used as a routine tool for political disagreement but only in cases of genuine presidential incapacity that commands overwhelming bipartisan support.
The amendment has never been used to remove a sitting president, though it has been invoked voluntarily when presidents underwent medical procedures. Its invocation would represent an unprecedented constitutional crisis that would require extraordinary evidence of presidential incapacity beyond mere policy disagreements or concerns about decision-making quality.
While Waters’ constitutional reference was flawed, her underlying concerns about Trump’s dismissal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook touch on legitimate questions about presidential power over monetary policy and potential conflicts of interest. The Federal Reserve System was designed to operate with significant independence from political pressure, and Fed governors serve 14-year terms specifically to insulate them from short-term political considerations.
Cook’s dismissal came amid mounting allegations of mortgage fraud, with federal housing regulators issuing criminal referrals over discrepancies in her property filings. The allegations center on claims that Cook misrepresented the nature of various properties on mortgage applications and government ethics forms, potentially obtaining better loan terms through false representations.
According to Bill Pulte, head of the U.S. Federal Housing Agency, Cook misrepresented a Cambridge, Massachusetts condominium as a “second home” on a 2021 mortgage application, then listed the same property as an “investment/rental property” on government ethics forms eight months later. Similar discrepancies allegedly exist regarding properties in Atlanta and Ann Arbor, creating a pattern of potentially fraudulent representations.
“Three strikes and you’re out,” Pulte wrote on social media, detailing what he characterized as repeated false representations by Cook about her various properties. Such discrepancies are significant because lenders typically offer more favorable terms for primary residences and second homes than for investment properties, which carry higher interest rates and down payment requirements due to perceived higher risks.
Despite her constitutional error, Waters raised substantive concerns about the economic implications of Cook’s dismissal that deserve serious consideration. As a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, Waters has extensive experience with monetary policy issues and legitimate expertise in evaluating the potential consequences of changes to Federal Reserve leadership.
“This stands to basically upend the entire economy. This stands to really deal with what is going to happen on Wall Street, what’s going to happen with interest rates, what’s going to happen with the president of the United States being able to make decisions that he will personally benefit from,” Waters argued during her MSNBC appearance.
Her concerns about potential conflicts of interest reflect broader questions about presidential power over institutions designed to operate independently from political influence. The Federal Reserve’s independence is considered crucial for effective monetary policy, as political pressure can lead to short-term decisions that undermine long-term economic stability.
Waters also worried about the precedent of removing Fed governors for reasons that might be politically motivated rather than based solely on performance or ethical violations. If presidents can easily dismiss Fed governors, it could compromise the institution’s independence and effectiveness in managing monetary policy without political interference.
Waters’ constitutional error quickly became viral content on social media platforms, with critics across the political spectrum mocking her mistake while questioning her competence to evaluate presidential fitness for office. The irony of calling for presidential removal based on mental unfitness while simultaneously demonstrating constitutional illiteracy was not lost on political observers and opponents.
“Mentally unstable Maxine Waters wants to invoke ‘Article 25’ of the Constitution because she says Trump is mentally unfit for office. ‘Something’s wrong with this president!’” noted the Western Lensman account on social media, highlighting the contradiction between Waters’ argument and her error.
Florida Politics editor Eric Daugherty was even more direct in his criticism: “WOW! Maxine Waters LOSES IT on national television, demands the immediate invoking of ‘Article 25’ of the Constitution to remove Donald Trump from office. There is no Article 25…there are only 7 Articles. ‘Something’s WRONG with this president!’ Something’s wrong with this CONGRESSWOMAN.”
The viral nature of Waters’ mistake demonstrates how quickly political errors can spread and overshadow substantive policy arguments in the modern media environment. Her constitutional confusion became the story rather than her concerns about economic policy or presidential accountability, effectively undermining her intended message and providing her opponents with ready-made attack material.
Waters’ error highlights broader concerns about constitutional literacy among elected officials and the importance of basic civics knowledge for effective governance. Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, making fundamental knowledge of that document’s structure and provisions a reasonable expectation for their service.
The mistake also reflects the challenges facing lawmakers who must speak extemporaneously about complex constitutional issues while under media pressure. Television appearances require quick thinking and clear communication, but they also create opportunities for errors that can have lasting political consequences when captured on video and shared widely online.
Constitutional literacy becomes particularly important when lawmakers attempt to invoke rarely used provisions like the 25th Amendment, which requires precise understanding of complex procedures and high legal standards. Misstatements about such procedures can undermine public confidence in both the specific lawmaker and the broader institution of Congress.
The rapid spread of criticism regarding Waters’ mistake demonstrates how constitutional errors can be weaponized in partisan political battles, often overshadowing the substantive policy concerns that prompted the original statement. In an era of intense political polarization, even minor mistakes can become major political liabilities that opponents exploit for maximum advantage.
This weaponization creates a chilling effect on political discourse, as lawmakers may become reluctant to engage in constitutional arguments for fear of making errors that will be used against them. However, it also reinforces the importance of constitutional competence among elected officials who must navigate complex legal and procedural issues as part of their official duties.
The focus on Waters’ error rather than the substance of her economic arguments reflects broader patterns in American political discourse, where procedural mistakes often receive more attention than policy substance. This dynamic can undermine productive debate about important issues while rewarding opponents who focus on gotcha moments rather than substantive engagement.
Waters’ mistake offers important lessons about the intersection of constitutional knowledge, political communication, and media strategy in contemporary American politics. The incident demonstrates that passionate advocacy must be combined with precise knowledge to maintain credibility and effectiveness in political arguments.
For lawmakers attempting to make constitutional arguments, the incident underscores the importance of careful preparation and fact-checking before public appearances. Constitutional provisions are complex and technical, requiring precise language and accurate references to maintain credibility and avoid providing opponents with attack opportunities.
The viral nature of Waters’ error also highlights how quickly political mistakes can spread in the digital media environment, making accuracy and precision more important than ever for public officials. In an era where every statement can become content for political opponents, lawmakers must balance spontaneous communication with careful attention to factual accuracy.
Despite Waters’ error, legitimate questions remain about the appropriate use of the 25th Amendment and the standards for determining presidential incapacity. The amendment’s high procedural barriers ensure it cannot be used for routine political disagreements, but they also create challenges for addressing genuine concerns about presidential fitness when they arise.
Future discussions about the 25th Amendment will need to distinguish between policy disagreements and genuine incapacity while maintaining the constitutional processes designed to prevent abuse of this extraordinary power. Waters’ error may actually complicate such discussions by associating constitutional arguments with constitutional illiteracy.
The incident also demonstrates the importance of constitutional education for both lawmakers and the general public, as effective democratic governance requires basic understanding of governmental structures and processes. When elected officials demonstrate confusion about fundamental constitutional provisions, it undermines public confidence in governmental institutions and democratic processes.
Representative Maxine Waters’ reference to the non-existent “Article 25” while calling for President Trump’s removal serves as a cautionary tale about the intersection of political passion and constitutional precision. Her substantive concerns about Federal Reserve independence and potential presidential conflicts of interest were overshadowed by a fundamental error that undermined her credibility and provided ammunition to political opponents.
The incident highlights the importance of constitutional literacy among elected officials and the challenges of maintaining accuracy while engaging in passionate political advocacy. In an era where every mistake can become viral content, lawmakers must balance spontaneous communication with careful attention to constitutional facts and procedures.
While Waters’ error was embarrassing and politically damaging, it should not completely overshadow the legitimate questions she raised about presidential power, institutional independence, and potential conflicts of interest. However, her mistake demonstrates that effective political advocacy requires not just passion and conviction, but also precise knowledge of the constitutional framework that governs American democracy.
The broader lesson extends beyond any individual lawmaker to encompass the fundamental importance of constitutional literacy in democratic governance. When elected officials demonstrate confusion about basic constitutional provisions, it undermines public confidence in both individual representatives and democratic institutions more broadly, making accurate constitutional knowledge not just politically advantageous but essential for effective democratic leadership.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Alabama Solicitor General Edmund “Eddie” LaCour Jr. as a federal judge for the Northern District of Alabama. The 51-47 vote fell along party lines and fills the vacancy left by Chief Judge L. Scott Coogler, who retired earlier this year.
LaCour’s confirmation caps a string of judicial victories for Alabama’s Senate delegation, following the recent confirmations of former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Bill Lewis and Huntsville attorney Hal Mooty. LaCour has served as Solicitor General under Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall since 2019, leading many of the state’s most high-profile appellate cases.
Among them was Allen v. Milligan, the landmark Alabama redistricting case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.
His confirmation also closes a political chapter that began five years ago.LaCour was first nominated to the federal bench in 2020 but was blocked by then-Sen. Doug Jones, who used his authority as Alabama’s home-state senator to prevent the nomination from advancing.
With the state’s Senate seats now held by Republicans, the nomination proceeded smoothly this time.
President Trump formally nominated LaCour earlier this year as part of a broader effort to fill federal vacancies in Alabama and other southern states.
Sen. Katie Britt, who led the confirmation effort alongside Sen. Tommy Tuberville, called LaCour’s legal record “unparalleled.”
“He is admitted to practice before every circuit court of appeals in our nation, as well as the Supreme Court where he has filed more than 100 briefs and argued three cases,” Britt said. “His legal acumen is unparalleled, and I have every confidence he will serve the Northern District exceptionally.”
Tuberville also praised LaCour’s appointment, saying he “has done an excellent job as Alabama’s Solicitor General” and “will continue his great work as a federal district court judge.”
With LaCour, Lewis, and Mooty now confirmed, Alabama’s federal judiciary enters 2026 with new appointments across its Northern and Middle Districts.
The Alabama Attorney General’s Office celebrated the news in a press release.
“Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall today celebrated the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Edmund LaCour Jr. to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Alabama,” the press release said.
“LaCour, who has served as solicitor general in the Attorney General’s Office since 2019, was nominated by President Donald Trump in August,” it said.
“Eddie is a brilliant and principled lawyer who brought a deep respect for the Constitution and the rule of law to every aspect of his work,” he said. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, Alabama, and the nation, will continue to benefit from Eddie’s unwavering integrity and exceptional service.”
He continued: “As solicitor general, Eddie left an indelible mark on some of the most consequential legal battles of our time. His unmatched skill and sharp constitutional insight earned him respect at every level of the judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court. President Trump could not have made a better choice. We are incredibly proud to see Eddie bring his intellect, humility and dedication to the federal bench.”
“LaCour has served as solicitor general of Alabama since May 2019, following his tenure as deputy solicitor general. Before joining the Attorney General’s Office, he was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington, D.C., where he represented clients in high-profile matters before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and trial courts. He also practiced at Bancroft PLLC in Washington and Baker Botts LLP in Houston,” the oress release said.
“A native of Dothan, Alabama, LaCour earned his Juris Doctor from Yale Law School, a Master of Philosophy from Trinity College Dublin, and a bachelor’s degree, summa cum laude, from Birmingham-Southern College. He clerked for Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit,” it said.
House Speaker Mike Johnson stepped before reporters on Tuesday determined to deliver a clear message: the long-awaited release of the Epstein files must be handled with precision, honesty, and respect for the victims — not turned into a political weapon.
For months, intense public pressure has built around the documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose criminal network and powerful associates remain the subject of intense national scrutiny. Recently, a group of House Democrats launched an aggressive push demanding immediate public release of the full archive. But to Johnson, their sudden enthusiasm rings hollow — even suspicious.
In a disciplined but forceful press conference, the Speaker accused Democrats of engaging in “a politically timed awakening” designed to reshape public opinion rather than uncover truth or bring justice to victims. Johnson argued that the party had possession — and oversight — of the same Epstein files for four years under the Biden administration but never showed even minimal urgency until now.
“Let’s start with a simple reality,” Johnson told reporters. “Every single document these Democrats are demanding was already in the hands of the Biden Department of Justice. They had the files for four long years. And during those years, not one of these lawmakers held a press conference, called for transparency, or urged action. Not one. There wasn’t even a whisper.”
That point became the cornerstone of Johnson’s argument: the sudden pivot from silence to outrage isn’t rooted in a desire for truth — it’s political calculation.
A Pattern Johnson Says America Has Seen Before
Johnson added that the same lawmakers now claiming to champion transparency displayed the opposite approach on almost every major issue during the previous administration.
“For four years,” he said, “these Democrats insisted there was no border crisis — even as millions poured across. They dismissed soaring inflation as ‘transitory.’ They insisted the public ignore what we could all plainly see — the physical and cognitive decline of President Biden.”
According to Johnson, the pattern is clear: dismiss or deny problems when politically convenient, then weaponize selective outrage when political tides shift.
“And now,” he continued, “almost overnight, these same individuals have discovered an ‘urgent crisis’ surrounding Epstein — a crisis they ignored for nearly half a decade. So the question is simple: why now?”
He paused, letting the question sink in — a tactic Johnson has used often in high-profile exchanges.
“The American people can connect the dots,” he added.
Johnson Says Republicans Want Transparency — But Responsible Transparency
While Johnson criticized Democrats for what he called opportunistic outrage, he emphasized repeatedly that Republicans are actively working to deliver what the public wants: transparency and accountability. But he said the release must be done responsibly — especially because the files contain sensitive information about victims, classified details, and ongoing investigative material.
“This is one of the most devastating criminal scandals in modern American history,” Johnson said. “These victims have endured enough, and we have an obligation to ensure nothing we do now retraumatizes them or jeopardizes any remaining investigations.”
Unlike the rhetoric coming from Democratic lawmakers, Johnson stressed that the process must be careful, methodical, and lawful.
“That’s not obstruction,” he said. “That’s responsible governance.”
In fact, Johnson highlighted that House Republicans — working through the Oversight Committee and other investigative panels — have already released more Epstein-related material than the newly introduced Democrat “discharge petition” even demands.
“We’re ahead of them,” he said. “That’s the truth they don’t want to admit.”
A Sudden Democrat Frenzy That Raises Questions
Johnson’s skepticism centers on what he described as a coordinated messaging shift among Democrats who had previously paid little attention to the Epstein network.
“So why the rush now?” he asked again. “Why the sudden panic? Why the dramatic public pressure when they had control of every lever of government and chose to do nothing?”
According to Johnson, the answer is not principle — but politics.
He argued that with Democrats struggling to defend their record on the border, inflation, energy, and foreign policy, they have now latched onto the Epstein documents as a political escape hatch — one that allows them to posture as crusaders for justice while attempting to paint Republicans as hesitant or obstructive.
But Johnson pushed back hard: “Republicans aren’t protecting anyone. We’re protecting the truth — and the victims. What we refuse to do is use this tragedy for political theatre.”
A Bipartisan Failure — But Not One Republicans Are Trying to Hide
Although Johnson aimed most of his criticisms at what he called Democrats’ “manufactured urgency,” he acknowledged that the Epstein case spans multiple presidential administrations, multiple attorneys general, and both political parties.
Epstein’s network touched powerful figures across business, academia, entertainment, and government — spanning decades. Johnson insisted this is precisely why the process must be done correctly, not rushed out to score headlines or damage political rivals.
“The American people deserve transparency,” he said. “But they also deserve accuracy.”
He argued that selective leaks, sloppy handling of evidence, or irresponsible public releases could destroy legitimate cases, misidentify innocent individuals, or violate the privacy of survivors.
“This is not reality television,” Johnson said. “It’s real life. These are real victims.”
Republicans Claim Democrats Ignored Red Flags for Four Years
Johnson highlighted additional inconsistencies in Democrats’ new messaging push. For example:
“They didn’t lift a finger,” Johnson repeated. “Not one. And now? They’re acting as though Republicans somehow prevented them from acting. It’s nonsense.”
The Victims Are the Centerpiece — Not the Politics
Johnson closed his remarks by turning toward the survivors — the individuals whose lives were permanently damaged by Epstein’s trafficking network.
“This is about them,” he said firmly. “Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not elections. The victims deserve justice — which has been delayed for far too long.”
He reaffirmed that Republicans are committed to a process that reveals the truth while preserving evidence for any additional prosecutions and protecting victims from further harm.
“This isn’t a game,” Johnson concluded. “We’re going to finish this — and we’re going to do it the right way.”
A Political Fight That Will Only Grow More Intense
With the Epstein documents now at the center of a national political storm, the Speaker’s broader message was clear: Republicans believe Democrats are trying to weaponize a tragedy they neglected for years — and they’re determined not to let the issue become another political football.
As more batches of documents are reviewed and released, the country is bracing for revelations that could reshape political narratives on both sides.
And Johnson seems prepared for the fight ahead.