1. United States
2. Iowa
3. Letter

I am not writing to you about policy. I am not writing to you about ideology. I am writing to you about something more fundamental than either: the capacity of the United States government to function. I am asking you, on behalf of your constituents and your country, to take the steps necessary to remove Donald Trump from the presidency — not because of any single action or position, but because the political science is unambiguous: a leader who has lost the public legitimacy required to govern can no longer govern effectively, regardless of the policies they pursue or the authority they legally hold. This is not an opinion. It is one of the most well-established principles in political science. THE POLITICAL SCIENCE CASE Robert Dahl, one of the most respected political scientists of the 20th century, described political legitimacy as a reservoir. So long as that reservoir remains filled — meaning the public broadly accepts the authority of the leader — governance is possible. When it drains below a critical level, political stability itself is endangered, regardless of who technically holds office. Jürgen Habermas, the German political philosopher, formalized what he called the “legitimation crisis” — the point at which a government loses the public trust necessary to implement its policies. His conclusion was stark: when legitimacy collapses, the state’s ability to govern is compromised at every level. Citizens become less willing to comply, less willing to cooperate, and institutions begin to break down. Political scientist Tom Tyler put it plainly: “If authorities are not viewed as legitimate, social regulation is more difficult and costly.” And comparative political science has established as a general principle that the more groups actively challenging the legitimacy of the official order, the less likely it will be that any government can function effectively or survive. None of these scholars were writing about Donald Trump. They were describing a universal condition of governance that applies to every leader in every democracy. And by every measure they identified, that condition now describes this presidency. THE DATA This is not conjecture. The evidence is documented and current. CNN’s most recent polling places Trump’s overall approval at 35% — one point from his all-time low — with two-thirds of Americans saying his policies have actively worsened economic conditions. A Pew Research Center survey of more than 8,500 adults found that only 21% are confident the president acts ethically in office. Only 25% support all or most of his policies — down from 35% just one year ago. Among his own base, strong approval has fallen from 52% to 43% in a matter of months. CNN’s chief data analyst has described this president as the “weakest president this century” at this stage of a second term — a full year of sustained net disapproval unlike any recorded for a modern second-term president. And critically: original district-level research using multilevel regression modeling now shows that Trump’s approval rating is below 50% among registered voters in 135 Republican-held congressional seats — 104 in the House and 31 in the Senate. Whatever your political affiliation, those are your colleagues’ constituents. They have already made their judgment. THE INSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT You do not have to agree with the opposition to recognize what the data shows. A president who commands the active trust of barely one-third of Americans cannot pass durable legislation. He cannot secure international agreements that will outlast his term. He cannot rally the country in a genuine national crisis. He cannot implement policy effectively because a critical mass of the public has already decided not to follow. This is not a partisan critique. This is governance theory, confirmed by current polling, playing out in real time. History offers a precise parallel. In 1974, members of Congress who had loyally supported Richard Nixon ultimately concluded — not that they had been wrong about his policies — but that protecting a president who had lost the public trust necessary to govern was destroying both the presidency and the country simultaneously. Their willingness to act saved the institution. History remembers them well for it. You are in that moment now. The Constitution provides the mechanisms. The 25th Amendment allows the Cabinet to act when a president can no longer discharge the duties of office. Impeachment allows Congress to act when conduct warrants removal. Both exist precisely for circumstances like these. They are not radical tools. They are constitutional ones, placed there by the founders for exactly this purpose. WHAT I AM ASKING 1. ACKNOWLEDGE PUBLICLY that a president governing with the active trust of barely one-third of Americans cannot fulfill the duties of the office effectively — regardless of party, and regardless of any individual policy position. 2. INITIATE OR SUPPORT the appropriate constitutional process — whether the 25th Amendment or impeachment proceedings — to begin the transition to leadership that can actually govern. 3. PUT YOUR CONSTITUENTS BEFORE POLITICAL CALCULATION. The district-level data shows that voters across the country have already made their judgment. The question is whether you will lead that conclusion or be swept away by it. This country does not need a Republican president or a Democratic president right now. It needs a president who commands sufficient public legitimacy to actually govern. That is not a partisan request. It is the minimum standard for a functioning democracy — and it is your responsibility to uphold that standard. I expect a written response by April 25, 2026. I will be sharing your response — or your silence — publicly.