25th Amendment Shockwave: How It Could Be Invoked to Remove a Sitting President Right Now

A fresh wave of debate about the 25th Amendment has erupted in Washington after former President Donald Trump publicly endorsed “modifying” the constitutional provision so that it could be used to remove a vice president as well as a president. Trump’s comments, delivered at a weekend rally, revived questions about presidential succession, executive fitness, and the rarely invoked Section 4—the only mechanism in U.S. law that permits involuntary removal of a sitting president judged “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Inside the Beltway, senior lawmakers are split. House Democrats argue that opening the door to vice-presidential removal risks “destabilizing the entire line of succession,” while some Senate Republicans say a narrowly tailored revision could “close loopholes” exposed during recent administrations. Legal scholars counter that altering the amendment would require ratification by three-quarters of the states, an uphill battle that could drag on for years. The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 after the Kennedy assassination, has four sections: • Section 1: the vice president becomes president upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president. • Section 2: the president nominates a new vice president when the office is vacant; both chambers of Congress must confirm. • Section 3: the president may temporarily transfer power by submitting a written declaration—used for medical procedures by Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, and Biden. • Section 4: the vice president plus a majority of the Cabinet, or “such other body as Congress may by law provide,” can declare the president unfit; Congress then decides disputes by a two-thirds vote. Section 4 has never been triggered, though it was informally discussed during the final weeks of the Trump administration after the January 6 attack on the Capitol. It resurfaced this week when talk-show host Whoopi Goldberg suggested invoking it “may be time” in the event Trump were re-elected. According to the Congressional Research Service, any statutory body created to replace the Cabinet in Section 4 would still require the vice president’s concurrence, making outright removal politically arduous. Constitutional lawyer Lisa Monaco notes that “the Founders intentionally made the bar high to prevent partisan coups while still giving the nation a safety valve during a crisis.” State legislatures are already weighing in. Florida’s GOP-controlled House filed a memorial urging Congress to “clarify” incapacity standards, while California Democrats introduced a resolution condemning efforts to “weaponize” the amendment for partisan gain. Analysts at FiveThirtyEight say the moves are largely symbolic but could foreshadow a broader federalism debate if a formal proposal advances. What happens next? • The Senate Judiciary Committee plans a hearing on presidential succession reform next month. • Polling from Quinnipiac shows 54 % of registered voters support keeping the amendment unchanged, while 32 % favor allowing removal of a vice president. • Think tanks are drafting model language that would spell out medical versus cognitive incapacity, hoping to codify clearer thresholds. For voters, the renewed spotlight on the 25th Amendment underscores a perennial question: who decides whether a commander-in-chief—or potentially a vice president—is fit to govern? With campaign season heating up and constitutional hardball increasingly common, the answer could shape the balance of power long after Election Day.