Clearly Unhinged!" Ex-CIA Chief Demands Coup to Oust Trump as Nuclear War Looms!
The dark legal loophole the former CIA Director is trying to use to empty the Oval Office.
In the long arc of American history, few spectacles have tested the resilience of our constitutional order more than moments when former officials, once entrusted with great power, seek to undermine a sitting president. Former CIA Director John Brennan added his voice to a growing chorus, openly advocating the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office amid escalating geopolitical tensions with Iran. Framing Trump’s rhetoric as “unhinged” and suggesting the amendment was “written with Trump in mind,” Brennan warned of grave risks to national security posed by the president’s warnings to the Iranian regime. Such claims, amplified across certain media outlets, merit careful scrutiny—not as impartial analysis, but as a reflection of deeper divisions that have strained our republic’s foundations for years.
Deterrence and the Doctrine of Peace Through Strength
At the heart of this controversy lies the administration’s firm stance toward Iran, a nation long viewed by many Americans as a destabilizing force in the Middle East. President Trump’s statements, including stark warnings of devastating consequences should Tehran fail to heed ultimatums, echo a tradition of "peace through strength" that served the nation well under leaders like Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s resolute posture toward the Soviet Union helped bring about the end of the Cold War without direct superpower conflict.
Trump’s approach appears rooted in similar realism: projecting American resolve to deter aggression, protect vital interests, and safeguard allies, rather than pursuing endless diplomatic accommodations that have too often emboldened adversaries.
However, experienced observers of Washington—those who recall the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 or the hard-won lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan—recognize that projecting weakness invites further provocation. For middle-class families and senior citizens across the heartland, who remember when American leadership commanded respect on the world stage, the alternative to strength is not peace but repeated humiliations, higher energy costs, and threats to the very stability that allows future generations to grow up secure.
The Constitutional Purpose of the 25th Amendment
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and growing concerns over executive continuity, was designed for genuine physical or mental incapacity—such as severe illness, coma, or sudden disability—not policy disagreements or rhetorical style.
Its invocation under Section 4 requires the vice president and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (the Cabinet) to declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. This extraordinarily high bar was wisely set by the Framers and lawmakers to prevent congressional or bureaucratic usurpation of executive authority.
Institutional Accountability and Political Skepticism
Adding layers of irony to the debate is Brennan’s own standing. The former intelligence chief has been under active scrutiny tied to past investigative conduct, including inquiries surrounding election intelligence and federal oversight. His history of frequent public commentary, sharply critical of Trump, invites natural skepticism about his analytical impartiality.
"The rule of law demands accountability for all, yet weaponizing intelligence structures against political opponents corrodes the very trust essential to self-government."
Americans of a certain age, who lived through Watergate and the Church Committee reforms of the 1970s, understand the inherent perils when national security agencies appear entangled in domestic politics. The rule of law requires neutral institutional integrity. When former intelligence leaders lean into partisan score-settling, it degrades public trust—a concern that transcends party lines and weighs heavily on citizens who value institutional stability over political maneuvering.
Historical ContextOriginal Constitutional IntentProposed Modern Usage (Critics)25th Amendment (1967)Medical disability, physical incapacity, operational coma.Disagreements over rhetoric, foreign policy, or style.Executive AuthorityCommander-in-Chief over foreign policy and defense.Subject to informal veto by former appointed bureaucrats.Separation of PowersClear constitutional checks and balances.Attempts to bypass the electoral and impeachment standards.
Preserving Constitutional Fidelity
This episode unfolds as President Trump exercises the executive responsibilities entrusted to him by the electorate: confronting external threats abroad while addressing governance at home. His supporters see continuity with efforts to rebalance American foreign policy toward clear-eyed defense of national sovereignty and economic security. Critics, including Brennan, frame it as unneeded escalation.
History will judge the administration's strategic posture, as it has every era from George Washington’s farewell warnings against foreign entanglements to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s cautions regarding institutional power. What remains constant is the American people’s expectation that their leaders prioritize constitutional duty, national strength, and the protection of citizens over performative outrage.
Our constitutional republic was crafted not for perfect leaders, but for imperfect human beings serving within a structured system of checks, balances, and deliberate processes. Rapid calls to invoke extraordinary constitutional mechanisms amid foreign policy disputes risk undermining the very stability that families, workers, and retirees depend upon. True leadership demands measured judgment and strict constitutional fidelity, ensuring that the principles animating our American experiment remain intact for generations to come.
JUST IN - MISSOURI REDISTRICTING BATTLE
KAVANAUGH REJECTS MISSOURI GOP STAY REQUEST - BUT FEDERAL JUDGE TEMPORARILY REVIVES TRUMP-BACKED MAP
The U.S. Supreme Court action was real, and Missouri's high court said a citizen referendum suspended the new districts. But a federal judge issued a conflicting 14-day order minutes later, so the claim that Missouri will definitely use its old map in November is no longer settled.
STATUS UPDATE - September 8, 2026: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' emergency stay application. Later the same evening, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark temporarily ordered the state to use the newer map. Further appeals were expected.
WASHINGTON / JEFFERSON CITY, MO. - A fast-moving legal fight over Missouri's congressional districts produced two sharply different court orders on September 8, leaving the map for the November 2026 midterm election uncertain even after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant Republican state officials emergency relief.
The first part of the viral claim is accurate: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency application filed by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins seeking to pause a Missouri Supreme Court decision that had blocked the state's Trump-backed 2025 congressional map. The U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 26A304, records the application as denied by Kavanaugh on September 8. The order did not include an explanation and was not a merits ruling on the underlying redistricting dispute.
However, the statement that Missouri therefore "will now use its previous congressional districts in November" became outdated almost immediately. Minutes after Kavanaugh acted, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri officials to use the newer map for the time being. His order is set to last 14 days while the federal case proceeds, creating a direct practical conflict with the Missouri Supreme Court's earlier command.
What Kavanaugh Actually Denied
Missouri Republicans did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling on the legality of the map. They asked for emergency relief - a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court's judgment - so the state could continue using the districts enacted in 2025 while litigation continued. Under the Supreme Court's circuit-assignment system, the application was submitted to Kavanaugh, who handles emergency matters from the Eighth Circuit.
The official docket says simply that the application was denied. That is enough to say the Supreme Court did not give Missouri officials the emergency relief they requested. But it is more precise to write that Kavanaugh denied the emergency stay application than to imply that the full Court issued a detailed final judgment against the map.
Supreme Court docket 26A304: "Sep 08 2026 - Application (26A304) denied by Justice Kavanaugh."
Missouri Supreme Court: The Referendum Suspended the New Map
The state-court ruling that triggered the emergency application was sweeping. The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the referendum petition challenging House Bill 1 was legal, sufficient and timely. Because the petition was filed before the law's effective date, the court held that HB 1 never took effect and could not take effect unless Missouri voters approved it in the November 2026 general election.
The state high court ordered Secretary Hoskins to certify the referendum petition and put it on the November ballot. It also said the congressional districts enacted in 2022 remained in force for the general election. That decision reversed a lower state court and rejected the secretary's earlier conclusion that the referendum could not be used to challenge congressional redistricting legislation.
More Than 300,000 Signatures - With an Important Qualification
Opponents of the 2025 map, led by People Not Politicians Missouri, submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025 to force a statewide referendum on House Bill 1. The number refers to signatures submitted by the campaign, not a claim that every signature was individually valid. The legal question was whether the petition contained enough valid signatures and complied with state law.
By September 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court had resolved that issue in the petitioners' favor, declaring the referendum petition sufficient and timely. The state's official petition system identifies 2026-R004 as the referendum challenging House Bill 1, and the court directed that the measure be placed before voters in November.
Why the New Map Matters Politically
Missouri currently sends six Republicans and two Democrats to the U.S. House. The 2025 map was drawn during a special legislative session after President Donald Trump urged Republican-led states to pursue mid-decade redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. The most consequential changes target the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional District represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver II.
By splitting portions of Kansas City among neighboring Republican-held districts and extending the remainder of the 5th District farther into more Republican territory, the new configuration was designed to improve Republican chances of winning an additional House seat. That is why the map is often described as potentially producing a 7-1 Republican delegation. The phrase "could give Republicans seven of eight seats" is reasonable as a description of the map's partisan objective, but it should not be presented as a guaranteed election result.
The Twist: A Federal Judge Reinstated the New Map - For Now
The most important correction to the original account came later on September 8. U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map despite the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Clark emphasized that Missouri had already conducted its August congressional primaries under the newer districts and warned that switching maps between the primary and general election could create candidate, voter and administrative confusion.
Clark wrote that using a different map for the general election would "wreak havoc on the fairness and orderliness of Missouri's congressional elections."
The federal order is temporary. It lasts 14 days pending further proceedings and does not erase the state Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri's referendum law. The competing orders instead created a new layer of litigation over federal election administration, state constitutional authority and the consequences of changing district boundaries after a primary has already taken place.
As a result, the most accurate status is not that the old map has definitively won or that the new map has definitively survived. The map for November remains contested, with additional litigation and appellate review capable of changing the answer again before ballots are finalized.
A Setback for Trump's Redistricting Push - But Not Yet a Final Defeat
Kavanaugh's denial was a setback for Missouri officials and Republican organizations that had asked the Supreme Court to preserve the Trump-backed map. It also reinforced, at least temporarily, the Missouri Supreme Court's conclusion that citizens could use the referendum process to suspend the redistricting law pending a statewide vote.
But the later federal restraining order means it is premature to describe the episode as a final defeat for Trump's broader mid-decade redistricting strategy. The Missouri dispute is one part of a national fight in which both parties have pursued new congressional maps in multiple states, often with control of a narrowly divided U.S. House in mind.
Conclusion
The core breaking-news claim was substantially correct at the moment Kavanaugh acted: Missouri Republicans failed to obtain the emergency Supreme Court stay they requested, and the state Supreme Court had ruled that a valid citizen referendum prevented the 2025 map from taking effect without voter approval. Organizers had submitted more than 300,000 signatures, and the new map was designed to give Republicans a better chance of expanding their six-seat share of Missouri's eight-member House delegation.
The final sentence of the original version, however, is no longer reliable. Missouri cannot yet be described as certain to use the previous congressional districts in November. A federal judge temporarily ordered use of the new map minutes after Kavanaugh's denial, and the legal battle is continuing. For publication, the safest headline is therefore one that reports the Supreme Court denial while making clear that the November map remains unsettled.
