Trump's health status .. Features of the Power Battle in Washington
At the beginning of September 2025, the United States is experiencing one of the most complex moments in its contemporary political history, with contradictory paths intersecting, combining the fragility of individual leadership with the strength of institutional structures. While widespread rumors about President Donald Trump's health were circulating, accompanied by his disappearance from public view for several days, the Senate was witnessing unprecedented moves by the Republican majority aimed at amending its internal rules through what is known as the "nuclear option," in order to expedite the passage of executive and judicial appointments nominated by Trump. Amid this scene, Vice President J.D. Vance emerged as a pivotal player when he declared his readiness to assume the reins of power if necessary, in an attempt to allay concerns, even though this added a new layer of political ambiguity.
These developments raised profound questions about the ability of the American political system to absorb shocks and about the balance between institutional continuity on the one hand and the presence of individual leadership on the other, reflecting the structural tensions that accompany American democracy in an era of extreme partisan polarization.
First: Trump's Absence and Rumors About His Health:
President Trump's disappearance from public view for three consecutive days during the Labor Day holiday was an exceptional event that sparked a series of interpretations and explanations. Although the president's absence coincided with an official holiday during which most politicians usually avoid the spotlight, Trump's nature, which has made constant media contact an integral part of his governing style, made his absence fertile ground for rumors.
Social media also played a central role in intensifying this crisis, with the hashtag #TrumpIsDead trending on the X platform (formerly Twitter) in the United States and around the world. This transformed his fleeting absence into a source of controversy with political and media dimensions. This trend wasn't limited to ordinary users; some intellectuals and politicians also participated, believing that the president's disappearance could conceal a major health crisis or even his death. These scenarios reminded many of the moments of ambiguity that authoritarian regimes, not established democracies, are accustomed to creating.
With Trump's return to the spotlight, images of him bearing alarming signs emerged, most notably the obvious bruises on his hands, prompting further speculation about his physical condition. His personal physician was forced to issue an official statement explaining that the bruises were the result of his constant use of aspirin and frequent collisions with others during social activities. He added that the president suffers from chronic venous insufficiency, a condition common in older adults that causes swelling in the ankles but is not life-threatening.
Although these clarifications were intended to allay concerns, they did not stem the flow of rumors, as questions persisted about the ability of a 79-year-old president to continue to govern a country facing mounting internal and external pressures. Thus, the crisis has transformed from a mere health issue into a mirror that exposes the fragility of individual leadership in the American system when transparency is absent and doubts mount.
Second: Republican Actions in the Senate:
In parallel with the ongoing debate over President Trump's absence and the health of the executive leadership, the Senate witnessed one of the most sensitive procedural battles in its modern history. The Republican majority pushed for a fundamental change in internal working rules through what is known as the "nuclear option," an exceptional process that allows for bypassing established parliamentary traditions and expediting the passage of executive and judicial appointments without requiring traditional party consensus or granting the Democratic opposition broad room to influence.
1. Background to the Nuclear Option
In American political terms, the term "nuclear option" refers to the use of a simple majority (51 votes) to change the Senate's rules, rather than the prescribed majority (usually 60 votes) required to break a parliamentary filibuster. This procedure has been used previously on pivotal occasions, most notably in 2013, when Democrats led by Harry Reid lowered the threshold for most executive and judicial appointments (except for the Supreme Court), and then in 2017, when Republicans extended this approach to Supreme Court appointments themselves.
But what the Republicans are proposing in September 2025 appears to be more expansive and dangerous, going beyond simply lowering the threshold to include a new mechanism that would allow for a vote on batches of nominees at once (en bloc) rather than debating each nominee individually. This could potentially allow more than 100 nominations to be approved in a short period of time, radically changing the nature of legislative oversight of the executive branch.
2. Content of the Proposed Amendment:
According to reports, the amendment would allow Republicans to submit lists of nominees for second-tier executive or judicial positions (such as undersecretaries, administrative positions, and district court judges) and vote on them en bloc. While senior positions such as Cabinet posts, the Supreme Court, and the courts of appeals will remain subject to the more rigorous traditional process.
In this way, Republicans aim to bypass Democratic tactics of delaying debates or imposing lengthy individual vetting processes for each nominee, tools historically used to protect minorities and ensure that appointments pass serious scrutiny.
3. The Political Dimensions of the Move:
Practically speaking, this amendment allows Trump and his party to fill administrative and judicial vacancies with tremendous speed, especially since these positions number in the hundreds and constitute the backbone of the federal bureaucracy. Even in the event of turmoil or a vacuum at the presidential level—as some are hinting in light of health rumors—the "Trumpization" of the bureaucracy will ensure the continuation of the Republican administration's orientation and consolidate its project in the institutions of the deep state.
This move reflects Republicans' awareness that control of the administrative and judicial apparatus is no less important than control of the White House itself. Judicial and regulatory institutions can influence policy for decades, even after the departure of elected presidents.
4. Democratic Opposition
In contrast, Democrats launched a fierce campaign of opposition to this move. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued that the amendment undermines the Constitution's principle of "advice and consent," transforming the Senate from a chamber of debate and scrutiny into a mere ratification machine. Senator Alex Padilla went further, warning that "the extraordinary measures taken today could have consequences far beyond the Trump presidency, as they redefine the function of the Senate itself."
These criticisms are based on a historical view of the Senate as the most "deliberative" body, where deliberations are supposed to transcend immediate partisan considerations and give the minority a real opportunity to influence. Therefore, weakening this traditional function could open the door to further institutional polarization in the future.
5. Significance of the Timing:
The timing of this move is as important as its content. The move came at the height of controversy over the president's health and temporary disappearance, giving it an additional symbolic dimension: Republicans are racing against time to demonstrate that executive power is immune and will not be disrupted, even if Trump himself faces a personal or leadership crisis. In this sense, the "nuclear option" becomes not only a procedural tool, but also a political message directed at home and abroad that American institutions—at least in Republican hands—are capable of continuing without interruption.
Third: J.D. Vance's Statements: Reassurance or Incitement?
Amid this scene clouded by rumors, Vice President J.D. Vance chose to step into the media spotlight via an interview with USA Today in late August 2025, where he made a statement that carried contradictory dimensions. He said, "If a tragedy occurs, I can't imagine a better training program than what I've received over the past 200 days." At the same time, he emphasized that President Trump is in "extremely good health" and continues to work late into the night.
From a first perspective, Vance wanted to send a reassuring message to both domestic and international audiences that the executive branch is immune to any potential vacuum, and that the transition—if circumstances warrant—will be smooth and constitutionally mandated. This message was directed specifically at financial markets, federal bureaucracies, and international partners closely monitoring the American landscape. In this context, Vance's statement can be understood as an extension of a traditional policy in the American political system, based on offering institutional alternatives to ensure stability even in moments of uncertainty.
But from another perspective, the statement backfired. It was seen as an implicit admission of the president's genuine health or political problems, fueling a wave of doubt rather than allaying it. On social media, the part about his "readiness to assume responsibility" was seized upon as a veiled indication that Trump might not be able to continue, while his subsequent reassurances were excluded from public debate. This paradox reflects a broader phenomenon in the age of digital media, where parts of statements are amplified to serve pre-existing narratives, even if the original intent was the opposite.
American political history provides interesting precedents for comparison. When President Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in the 1950s, his Vice President Richard Nixon played a pivotal role in reassuring the public, but this occurred within a framework of strict media control and close coordination with the White House. Likewise, when Franklin Roosevelt's health deteriorated in his final years, the White House continued to tightly control information, while the political elite worked to maintain the image of a strong president despite their awareness of his deteriorating condition. Compared to those moments, Vance's statement appears less restrained and more spontaneous, which made its political and media impact more confusing.
In addition, Vance's personality should be considered an influential factor. He is a rising figure in the Republican Party and enjoys a popular base among the new "Trumpism" community, but he has not yet undergone major tests of national leadership. Therefore, his statement may reflect his desire to demonstrate leadership readiness, rather than a carefully calculated strategy. In this sense, the statement becomes an indicator of the underlying tension within the administration between the need to demonstrate institutional discipline and the individualistic tendency to assert oneself. Thus, it can be said that Vance's statements represented a "double-edged sword": On the one hand, they reinforced the image of American institutions as capable of dealing with any emergency in accordance with the Constitution. On the other hand, they re-highlighted the fragility of Trump's health and political situation, opening the door to further debate about the stability of leadership in the White House.
Fourth: The Constitutional and Institutional Dimension:
The crisis of statements and ongoing actions in the Senate cannot be separated from the broader framework of the American constitutional and institutional system, as what is happening puts at stake the delicate balances established by the Founding Fathers between the executive and legislative branches. On the one hand, Republicans are threatening to employ what is known as the "nuclear option," i.e., breaking the tradition of the filibuster, which has served as a tool for protecting minorities within the chamber for decades. This effectively means redefining the rules of the parliamentary game to allow the majority to pass crucial decisions without the need for broad consensus. On the other hand, Democrats believe that the Republican trend is not limited to a current political confrontation, but rather threatens the very essence of the principle of checks and balances, which restrains tendencies toward monopolization of power.
The constitutional debate is not limited to rigid texts, but extends to the legacy of parliamentary norms that have long represented what is known as the "unwritten constitution" in the US Congress. The filibuster system has served as a guarantee for continued dialogue and the search for compromise. However, the tense political climate, charged with statements like Vance's that undermine mutual trust, could make breaking this norm a precedent that will redraw the boundaries of interactions within the legislative institution for decades to come.
In a broader sense, this moment reflects a dual institutional crisis of trust: trust between the two parties, and trust between Congress and the public, which sees the governing institutions unable to agree even on the rules for managing disputes. Herein lies the gravity of the crisis. It is not merely a battle over the presidential authority or the future of a particular foreign policy, but rather a test of the strength of the American constitutional structure in the face of unprecedented partisan polarization.
Fifth: Regional and International Implications:
The repercussions of the current crisis extend beyond the domestic American landscape, leaving their direct and indirect mark on regional and international balances. The world is closely watching how the American political system is withdrawing into itself at a critical moment of testing, reviving old questions about the continuity of American leadership in the international system. For traditional allies in Europe, statements like those made by Vance and Republican movements in the Senate are troubling signs of the fragility of the American consensus on foreign commitments. This reinforces the voices calling in Brussels, Berlin, and Paris for the need to build greater strategic independence in anticipation of the absence of the American umbrella in times of crisis.
In the Middle East, the repercussions of the crisis appear more direct. The bickering in Congress is raising doubts about the future of American support for some hot issues, such as the war in Ukraine, security commitments in the Gulf, and the position on the conflict in Gaza. Regional powers, whether allies or adversaries of Washington, view these divisions as a window for repositioning. Regional players realize that any paralysis in American decision-making allows them greater room to maneuver or impose new facts on the ground.
On the broader international level, Washington's strategic rivals, such as China and Russia, do not hide their satisfaction with what they consider an "internal rift" in the American decision-making structure. This rift is being exploited in propaganda rhetoric to undermine the image of American democracy as a global model. Conversely, the White House finds itself compelled to double down on its reassuring rhetoric to allies, while investors and financial markets watch with caution, fearing that this political polarization could turn into a source of volatility in international economic and trade policies.
In this sense, the crisis is not reduced to a domestic partisan conflict. Rather, it reveals a broader imbalance in the American global leadership system and serves as a reminder that American domestic politics have become a decisive factor in shaping the international strategic environment, perhaps as much as the decisions of the White House or the State Department.
Sixth: What is the future of the American political structure?
The current crisis in Washington reveals a complex landscape in which domestic and constitutional dimensions overlap, ultimately impacting the regional and international environment, making it difficult to treat as a temporary or transient crisis. On the domestic level, Vance's statements and the subsequent intense partisan debate revealed the fragility of American political polarization, with partisan rhetoric increasingly inclined to stoke fears rather than reassure public opinion, undermining the social legitimacy of the political system. On the constitutional and institutional level, the Republicans' threat of the nuclear option reflects the transition of the crisis from a political dispute to a test of the rules of the game itself, potentially opening the door to redefining the norms upon which congressional traditions have been based for a century.
These internal repercussions are not confined to the national sphere; they are translating into external confusion regarding the United States' image as a leading force in the international system. Allies are concerned about Washington's ability to adhere to its long-term commitments, while adversaries are exploiting internal divisions to weaken American prestige and distort its democratic model. In this sense, the American crisis is becoming a variable in the global strategic equation, as the future of stability in issues such as Ukraine and the Middle East is tied to the outcomes of partisan conflict in Congress and the White House.
Looking ahead, it can be said that the continuation of this pattern of polarization will make American politics more volatile and less predictable, opening the way for two main scenarios: The first is that repeated shocks will lead to an internal review that restores constitutional norms and the search for partisan compromises that restore the balance between the executive and legislative branches. This is a difficult scenario, but not impossible, given established traditions. The second scenario is that the regime will slide into further erosion of norms and politicization of institutions, which will deepen internal paralysis and reinforce the tendency toward international withdrawal, leaving a vacuum that other forces will race to fill.
In this sense, the crisis does not appear to be merely a partisan dispute or a momentary battle in Congress. Rather, it reflects deeper transformations in American democracy and its global position, making monitoring its trajectories essential for understanding not only the future of American politics, but the future of the international system as a whole.