\n<\/p>\n
Calls to invoke the 25th Amendment have become a kind of political reflex \u2014 trotted out whenever opponents of a sitting president decide that sharp rhetoric, unconventional behavior, or controversial decision-making must somehow amount to incapacity. With Donald Trump, this refrain has reached predictable levels: he\u2019s \u201cunfit\u201d or \u201cunstable,\u201d critics say, and therefore should be removed not through elections or even impeachment, but via the Constitution\u2019s emergency mechanism for presidential disability. That argument fundamentally misunderstands what the 25th Amendment is and why it exists.<\/span><\/p>\n Ratified in 1967 in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy\u2019s assassination, the 25th Amendment was designed to address a narrow but serious problem: what happens when a president is incapable of exercising the powers of the office? Section 4, the most discussed (and most misunderstood) provision \u2014 and one that has never been invoked \u2014 allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare that the president is \u201cunable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.\u201d Upon transmitting that declaration to Congress, the vice president immediately assumes the role of acting president.<\/span><\/p>\n Crucially, the amendment anticipates disagreement. If the president contests the declaration, Congress must decide the issue, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses to sustain the vice president\u2019s judgment. That\u2019s an extraordinarily high bar, reflecting the gravity of sidelining a duly elected president without impeachment.<\/span><\/p>\n The text is clear: the concern is inability and incapacity, not unpopularity or controversy. It\u2019s a mechanism for dealing with presidents who cannot function, not those whose personalities provoke opposition.<\/span><\/p>\n Historical practice reinforces this understanding. The 25th Amendment has been invoked several times \u2014 under Section 3, which allows voluntary delegation of authority \u2014 in cases involving clear, temporary incapacity. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan had surgery for colon cancer and transferred power to Vice President George H.W. Bush for about eight hours. President George W. Bush invoked Section 3 twice, in 2002 and 2007, when he underwent colonoscopies requiring anesthesia. President Joe Biden did the same thing in 2021. In these cases, the respective vice presidents briefly served as \u201cacting\u201d president. They were textbook examples of the 25th Amendment\u2019s purpose: a president temporarily unable to perform his duties due to a known, concrete medical condition.<\/span><\/p>\n Even outside formal invocation, the amendment\u2019s logic reflects lessons from earlier constitutional crises. Woodrow Wilson, after suffering a debilitating stroke in 1919, remained president in name only while his wife and aides effectively ran the executive branch. That episode \u2014 along with concerns raised after President Dwight Eisenhower\u2019s heart attack \u2014 led to calls for constitutional reform, which Kennedy\u2019s assassination finally triggered.<\/span><\/p>\n In other words, this provision exists precisely because there have been presidents who were genuinely unable to govern due to physical or cognitive impairment. It\u2019s not a catch-all remedy for political dissatisfaction.<\/span><\/p>\n Which brings us to Donald Trump. One can oppose his policies, criticize his rhetoric, or argue that he shouldn\u2019t be president. The Constitution provides a mechanism for that: elections. It also provides another mechanism for serious misconduct: impeachment. But outrage over a president\u2019s behavior can\u2019t magically transform into constitutional \u201cinability.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Trump\u2019s critics often claim that he\u2019s erratic or mentally unstable. But these are political assertions, not medical diagnoses. More importantly, they\u2019re not evidence of incapacity as the 25th Amendment contemplates it. There\u2019s no indication that Trump is unable to understand his role, make decisions, or carry out the basic functions of the presidency. Indeed, whatever one thinks of his style, he\u2019s behaving much as he did during his first term \u2014 hardly evidence of a sudden, disqualifying decline.<\/span><\/p>\n The contrast with genuinely incapacitated presidents is stark. Wilson was physically and neurologically impaired to the point of being unable to govern. More recently, Biden\u2019s cognitive decline prompted debate precisely because it raised questions about whether he could perform the job\u2019s demands. Those are the kinds of situations the 25th Amendment is meant to address: actual inability, not partisan disgust.<\/span><\/p>\n To stretch the amendment to cover unconventional leadership would be to weaponize it, turning a safeguard for emergencies into a tool for political maneuvering. That would not only distort the Constitution but also set a dangerous precedent, inviting future cabinets and vice presidents to attempt end-runs around elections whenever tensions run high.<\/span><\/p>\n Trump\u2019s opponents are entirely within their rights to argue that he is unfit for office. They can make that case to Congress and ultimately to voters. They can even continue to deploy the language of \u201ccraziness\u201d in the rough-and-tumble of political debate. But they shouldn\u2019t pretend that such rhetoric satisfies the legal standard for removing a president under the 25th Amendment.<\/span><\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, senior counsel to Burke Law Group, PLLC, and author, most recently, of <\/span>Lawless: The Miseducation of America\u2019s Elites<\/span><\/a>. He also writes the\u00a0<\/span>Shapiro\u2019s Gavel<\/span><\/a>\u00a0newsletter.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n