Fact check: How does one person start working on removing sitting president through the 25th amendment of U.S. constitution

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, no single individual can unilaterally initiate the 25th Amendment process to remove a sitting president. The constitutional mechanism requires collective action from multiple high-ranking officials ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

The 25th Amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet (principal officers of the executive departments) to transmit a written declaration to Congress stating that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office ^{[2] [3]}. This provision has never been invoked in U.S. history ^{[1] [2]}.

Recent developments show that Rep. Darrell Issa has proposed a constitutional amendment to make it easier to remove a president who is unable to perform the job, suggesting involvement of Congress and the Supreme Court in the process ^[4]. This proposal addresses what experts call the "loyalty paradox" - the current system empowers officials who owe their careers to the president to act against him ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the fundamental structural limitations of the 25th Amendment. The analyses reveal that the current system has inherent flaws because the officials empowered to act are those who owe their careers to the president they would need to remove ^[5].

Alternative approaches are being considered, including proposals to involve Congress and the Supreme Court in determining presidential fitness, rather than relying solely on the Vice President and Cabinet ^{[4] [5]}. The analyses also mention that Congress can establish a commission to determine the president's fitness for office, though this mechanism is rarely discussed ^[2].

Political figures like Rep. Darrell Issa would benefit from promoting alternative removal mechanisms, as it could provide more pathways for congressional oversight and potentially reduce executive power concentration ^[4]. Conversely, sitting presidents and their administrations benefit from maintaining the current high threshold for removal, as it protects them from politically motivated challenges to their fitness.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains a fundamental misconception by asking how "one person" can start the 25th Amendment process. This framing suggests individual agency where none exists constitutionally. The analyses consistently show that the process requires collective action from multiple officials - specifically the Vice President plus a majority of Cabinet members ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

The question may also reflect misunderstanding about the amendment's purpose, which was designed for cases of presidential disability or incapacitation, not as a general removal mechanism for political disagreements. The analyses from 2021 show this confusion arose during discussions about President Trump after January 6th events ^[1], when some called for 25th Amendment invocation despite it being intended for medical incapacitation rather than political misconduct.

The timing of recent sources ^{[4] [5]} from June 2025 discussing new proposals to modify the amendment suggests ongoing political debates about presidential removal mechanisms, which may be influencing public misunderstanding about current constitutional processes.