Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Have there been any instances where the 25th Amendment was invoked in US history?
Executive Summary
The 25th Amendment has been used in U.S. history both to fill vice presidential vacancies and to temporarily transfer presidential power, most notably in the 1970s and across several administrations since. Confirmed historical invocations include the appointment of Gerald Ford as Vice President in 1973 and his succession to the presidency in 1974, and multiple temporary transfers of authority when presidents underwent medical procedures; analysts document these uses and different interpretations of the amendment’s mechanisms [1] [2] [3].
1. How a Vacancy Became the First Real Test — Nixon, Ford and the Amendment in Action
The most consequential early application of the 25th Amendment occurred when President Richard Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford to fill the vacant vice presidency after Spiro Agnew resigned; Congress confirmed Ford under the Amendment’s Section 2 process, setting a constitutional precedent for filling vacancies. This use validated the amendment’s remedy for an empty vice-presidential office and directly led to the only instance where a vice president became president because of resignation rather than death or impeachment. Contemporary summaries identify this chain—Nixon’s nomination, Ford’s confirmation, then Ford’s succession after Nixon’s resignation—as the Amendment’s first operational test [1].
2. Temporary Transfers of Power: Routine Medical Procedures and Formal Transfers
Presidents have invoked Section 3 of the 25th Amendment to temporarily transfer authority to their vice presidents when undergoing medical procedures that require anesthesia or otherwise impair their ability to perform duties. The historical record collected in analyses shows that Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden each executed such temporary transfers, handing power to Vice Presidents during short medical procedures and then resuming authority afterward. These examples illustrate how the Amendment functions as a practical safety valve for planned, short-term incapacity, with administrations treating the mechanism as a routine constitutional tool [2].
3. Disputed Invocations and the Limits of Section 4: Who Can Start the Process?
The 25th Amendment’s Section 4 authorizes the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare a president unable to discharge powers, potentially triggering a transfer without the president’s consent. Analysts note sharp debates over who may initiate and adjudicate such a claim, and argue that Congress could designate an alternative body, raising concerns about political use. Commentary underscores that the Speaker of the House cannot unilaterally invoke the Amendment; only the vice president and designated officials have standing to start the Section 4 process, a crucial limitation highlighted in recent analyses [4] [3].
4. Scholarly and Political Interpretations Diverge — Safety Net vs. Political Weapon
Experts and commentators differ on whether the Amendment is primarily a technical safety mechanism for brief incapacity or a constitutional safeguard against serious presidential impairment. Some stress the amendment’s original remedial purpose—clear lines for succession and temporary transfer—while critics worry about potential politicization if Section 4 were used in contested circumstances. These different framings reflect broader institutional and partisan anxieties: proponents emphasize continuity and clarity, while opponents warn of destabilizing, potentially partisan uses without robust checks beyond Cabinet majority and congressional review [3] [4].
5. Recent Scholarship and Reporting Emphasize Practical Usage Over Theoretical Threats
Recent analyses published in 2025 examine the Amendment’s practical invocations and tend to underscore that actual uses have been limited, structured, and largely uncontroversial: vice-presidential appointments and short-term medical transfers. Contemporary reporting dated September 2025 highlights the Amendment’s role in routine governance rather than the eruptive constitutional crisis some feared, noting institutional norms that have guided its use and the absence of a precedent for coercive or partisan deployment of Section 4 as of those reports [3] [4].
6. What’s Missing from the Record — Unanswered Questions and Procedural Gaps
Analysts agree the historical record documents several concrete uses but also point to gaps: no record exists of a forced removal of presidential authority under Section 4, and there is limited litigation testing the Amendment’s more contentious provisions. Key omissions include detailed statutory designations of alternative bodies Congress might authorize, and formalized procedural safeguards for contested Section 4 actions. These lacunae explain why scholars call for legislative clarity or norms to reduce ambiguity and potential partisan exploitation in future high-stakes scenarios [3] [2].
7. Bottom Line: Concrete Uses, Narrow Reach, and Ongoing Debate
Empirical evidence confirms the 25th Amendment has been invoked in measurable ways—filling the vice-presidential vacancy in the 1970s and enabling temporary transfers of power during medical procedures—while Section 4 remains untested in a removal context and a source of active debate. Analysts from the supplied material converge on the view that the Amendment has functioned as designed in routine and planned circumstances, but they diverge over risks and remedies for potential future contentious invocations, leaving lawmakers and scholars urging clearer rules [1] [2] [3].