Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., responded to President Donald Trump's blunt warnings to Iran by calling him an "unhinged lunatic" and demanding his removal from office, choosing to side with Tehran's talking points over an American president pressuring a hostile regime to open a critical shipping lane, Fox News Digital reported.
Omar posted on X on Monday, sharing a screenshot of Trump's Truth Social message and writing:
"This is not ok. Invoke the 25th amendment. Impeach. Remove. This unhinged lunatic must be removed from office."
She was not alone. Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Mark Kelly of Arizona all piled on over the weekend and into Monday, casting Trump's pressure campaign against Iran as reckless or even criminal. The pattern is familiar: Democrats who spent years tolerating Iran's nuclear brinkmanship, its proxy wars, and its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz now find their outrage only when an American president talks tough about it.
On Easter Sunday, Trump posted on Truth Social a message aimed squarely at Iran's leadership. The post read, in part:
"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F---in' Strait, you crazy b*******, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH!"
Then on Monday, Trump elaborated during public remarks, describing what he framed as a contingency plan should negotiations with Iran fail. He said the U.S. has "a plan... where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o'clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again. I mean complete demolition by 12 o'clock."
But he also added a line the critics conveniently glossed over: "We don't want that to happen."
That distinction matters. Trump was describing leverage, the kind of direct, unmistakable pressure that has a long history in American foreign policy. The message to Tehran was clear: negotiate or face consequences. The Democratic response treated it as though the bombs had already fallen.
Omar's demand to invoke the 25th Amendment, a constitutional mechanism designed for a president who is physically or mentally incapacitated, not one whose rhetoric offends the opposing party, tells you everything about the seriousness of her position. This is the same congresswoman who openly acknowledged that Democrats blocked DHS funding over ICE demands, placing ideology above basic government operations. Her credibility on matters of presidential fitness is thin.
Sen. Jeff Merkley posted on X on Sunday, calling Trump's words "the words of a frustrated and immoral madman." He went further:
"Many experts agree that such attacks would be war crimes under international law. To our military leaders, remember this: You are legally required to refuse orders to commit war crimes."
Merkley did not name these "many experts." He did not cite a specific legal finding. He simply urged the U.S. military to refuse hypothetical orders from the commander-in-chief based on a social media post. That is a remarkable escalation from a sitting senator, and one that received far less scrutiny than the post it was reacting to.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, called Trump's comments "the ravings of a dangerous and mentally unbalanced individual" in his own Sunday post on X. He added: "Congress has got to act NOW. End this war." What war Sanders was referring to is unclear, no military action against Iran had taken place.
Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, a former Navy combat pilot and astronaut, struck a more measured tone on Monday but still landed on the side of caution over strength. Kelly wrote on X:
"Threatening to target power plants and other non-military targets is not strength. If those words become orders to destroy civilian infrastructure with no valid military purpose, it's hard to see how they would not violate the laws of armed conflict. America leads best with strength, discipline, and professionalism. Illegal orders to make civilians suffer would be a black mark on our military and our country."
Kelly's framing, "if those words become orders", at least acknowledged that no orders had been given. But the overall thrust of his message still treated a negotiating posture as a near-fait accompli, which is precisely the kind of preemptive surrender that emboldens adversaries.
Omar's latest broadside fits a well-established pattern. She has repeatedly clashed with the Trump administration, and the White House has not been shy about returning fire. Vice President Vance has confirmed the White House is actively pursuing Omar over alleged immigration fraud, a matter that has lingered in conservative circles for years.
The congresswoman has also drawn scrutiny for her rhetoric in the opposite direction. She previously invoked Somali executions in an attack on the Trump administration, prompting Rep. James Comer to fire back with fraud questions of his own. Omar's willingness to reach for the most extreme language available, "unhinged lunatic," demands for the 25th Amendment, is not a sign of principled dissent. It is a pattern of escalation designed for social media engagement, not governance.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has also targeted Omar and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in a push to crack down on welfare fraud in the state, adding another front to the ongoing political conflict between the White House and the Minnesota congresswoman.
What none of these critics addressed is the underlying problem: Iran's behavior. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important waterways on earth. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close it, disrupting global energy markets and endangering international shipping. Trump's post, however blunt, was aimed at forcing Iran to keep the strait open.
Democrats offered no alternative. Omar did not propose a diplomatic framework. Merkley did not outline what a better Iran policy would look like. Sanders declared a war that does not exist and demanded Congress end it. Kelly came closest to a substantive critique but still operated entirely in the hypothetical.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment early Tuesday morning. No response was reported.
The contrast is instructive. Trump communicated directly with a hostile regime in language that regime would understand. Democrats communicated with their base in language designed to generate outrage. One approach is aimed at changing Iranian behavior. The other is aimed at changing the subject from Democratic inaction on Iran to Republican rhetoric about it.
This is the core problem with the left's foreign-policy instincts. When confronted with an adversary that enriches uranium, funds terror proxies, and threatens global commerce, their first impulse is not to confront the adversary. It is to confront the American president who does.
Omar's invocation of the 25th Amendment deserves particular attention because it reveals how casually some members of Congress treat constitutional mechanisms. The amendment's Section 4, the provision for removing a president who is unable to discharge the duties of office, requires the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to act. It was designed for genuine incapacity, not policy disagreements or distaste for a president's tone on social media.
Using it as a rhetorical weapon cheapens the Constitution. But for Omar, the Constitution has always been more of a talking point than a constraint, convenient when it supports her position, disposable when it doesn't. The same lawmaker who faces ongoing White House scrutiny over alleged immigration fraud is now lecturing the country about constitutional order.
The American public can judge for itself whether a president who pressures a hostile regime to keep a vital waterway open is acting outside the bounds of his office, or whether the lawmakers rushing to microphones to defend Iran's infrastructure are the ones with misplaced priorities.
When the left's first instinct is to protect Iran from tough talk rather than protect American interests from Iranian aggression, voters don't need a pundit to tell them whose side these lawmakers are on.