Trump’s biggest political threat may be inside his own movement

The real story is not whether the 25th Amendment is realistic. It’s that parts of Trump’s orbit now seem to believe the movement could function better without him.

Calls for Donald Trump’s removal are suddenly coming from some unusual places.

Right-wing personalities, former allies, anti-Trump Republicans, and media figures are openly talking about the 25th Amendment, Trump’s instability, and the possibility of JD Vance replacing him. Figures like Candace Owens, Alex Jones, and Anthony Scaramucci are now part of that conversation. There are others who, for different reasons, have either orbited Trumpworld, benefited from it, or at least understood its incentives.

Now, let me be clear: I do not think Trump is likely to be removed.

Even the more optimistic scenarios floating around, including the one Robert Reich recently outlined, still amount to a long shot. The mechanics alone make it extraordinarily difficult, and there is no meaningful evidence at this point that Trump’s cabinet is preparing to turn on him.

But that may not actually be the most important part of this story.

The real shift is psychological.

For years, even people within Trump’s broader orbit who privately found him exhausting, unstable, or politically dangerous mostly stayed quiet. The calculation was simple: whatever the concerns, Trump was still the vehicle. He was still the path to power. So you swallowed your objections, got in line, and repeated the talking points.

That appears to be changing.

---

---

The post-Trump thought experiment has begun

What stands out here is not the plausibility of the 25th Amendment scenario itself. It is that more people on the right are now openly imagining a post-Trump future and, perhaps more notably, imagining that future as an improvement.

That is not nothing.

Because once people inside a political movement start publicly entertaining succession, you have already entered a different phase of the story.

The hypothetical Robert Reich scenario making the rounds is political fantasy more than an imminent roadmap. JD Vance decides Trump is no longer viable, recruits Marco Rubio by promising him the vice presidency, and together they trigger a cascade through Republican leadership. It reads more like political fiction than a serious near-term strategy.

But viral political fiction often reveals something real underneath.

In this case, what it reveals is that people are increasingly comfortable asking a question that used to be politically radioactive: what comes after Trump?

Trump as mascot, not manager

There is a fairly simple explanation for why this shift may be happening.

Trump increasingly functions less like an active governing president and more like a symbolic mascot for the movement. And if that is true, the incentives become much easier to understand.

If you are inside Trump’s cabinet, chaos may actually be useful.

A distracted, erratic president creates room for everyone else to expand their own influence. Cabinet members gain autonomy. Power flows downward. Decision-making becomes fragmented in ways that may actually benefit ambitious people operating nearby.

If the president is absorbed in spectacle, grievance, or self-created drama, others can quietly build their own empires. That creates a strange incentive structure where dysfunction is not necessarily a bug. It may be a feature. Which helps explain why cabinet revolt remains unlikely.

The outsiders have different incentives

But the people speaking out are not, for the most part, the ones directly benefiting from proximity to executive power. That matters.

Candace Owens and Alex Jones are useful examples, not because their politics are principled, but because their incentives are different. The further someone drifts from the center of Trump’s immediate power structure, the less appealing chaos becomes.

If you are no longer benefiting from the machinery, the instability stops looking strategic and starts looking costly. And that may be what we are seeing. Not necessarily a moral awakening. Not necessarily a constitutional crisis.

Just a recalculation.

The actual question

So the real question is not whether Trump is unstable enough for removal.

The real question is whether the people around him still find him useful.

If Trump remains valuable as a chaotic figurehead who absorbs attention while others pursue their own agendas, then there is very little reason for insiders to move against him. If, however, he becomes more of a liability than an asset, the conversation changes quickly.

That is how power movements tend to work. Loyalty often looks ideological from the outside. Internally, it is frequently transactional.

So maybe the question is this:

At what point does a political movement decide its mascot has become bad for business?

---

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.