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.
Were there serious attempts to use the 25th Amendment on Donald Trump in 2020?
Executive summary
Calls to use the 25th Amendment against Donald Trump in the wake of January 6, 2021, were public, repeated and discussed by lawmakers, legal scholars and commentators — but no formal, successful invocation occurred. Reporting and reference sources show Democratic leaders and commentators urged Vice President Mike Pence and Cabinet members to act [1] [2] [3], while experts consistently described Section 4 as untested, politically difficult and never used to remove a president [1] [4] [2].
1. What people urged immediately after January 6: public pressure and congressional letters
In the days after the Capitol attack, many Democrats and some commentators called for Vice President Mike Pence and the Cabinet to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to declare President Trump unfit; House Democrats even wrote to Pence urging him to act, and commentators including Senate leaders publicly urged removal if the vice president and Cabinet would not [3] [1]. The calls were visible in mainstream U.S. reporting and on-air commentary, framing the 25th Amendment as an alternative to impeachment in the narrow post-insurrection window [1].
2. What “attempts” actually looked like — public pressure, not a Cabinet action
Available sources document public appeals and political pressure rather than a secret or formal Cabinet filing: news outlets and legal commentators described Democratic leaders exploring the option and urging Pence to act, but they report no evidence the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet submitted the written declaration required under Section 4 [1] [2]. Wikipedia-style summaries and contemporaneous reporting note that some Cabinet members “were reportedly considering” asking Pence to agree to invoke the amendment, but they do not indicate that a Section 4 letter was delivered [2].
3. The legal mechanics: why Section 4 is harder than it sounds
Legal explainers emphasized that Section 4 requires a written statement from the vice president and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments to Congress, after which the vice president immediately assumes powers; if the president contests, Congress has 21 days to decide by two-thirds in both houses [1]. Reporters and scholars stressed this process is untested and intentionally rigorous, making political consensus among the vice president, Cabinet and two-thirds of Congress the de facto barrier to removal [1] [4].
4. Historical context and precedent: never used to remove a president
All sources note that Section 4 of the 25th Amendment had never been used to permanently remove a sitting president; while Section 3 (temporary transfer) has been used rarely for medical procedures, Section 4 remains unexercised in removal scenarios — a point cited repeatedly in contemporaneous coverage of 2021 events [4] [2] [3]. That lack of precedent shaped elite calculations about feasibility and risk.
5. Competing remedies: impeachment and political considerations
Reporting shows that many Democrats framed the 25th Amendment as an alternative or complement to impeachment; PBS and other outlets highlighted that House members could pursue impeachment (which ultimately happened) while the 25th Amendment required executive-branch cooperation that was unlikely given Pence’s and many Cabinet members’ political ties [1]. Sources explain why lawmakers who sought immediate removal pursued both public pressure and the later path of impeachment and conviction as Congress’s available tools [1] [2].
6. Scholarly and opinion voices: advocacy vs. skepticism
Legal scholars and opinion writers diverged: some urged invoking Section 4 as a constitutional safety valve against an “unfit” president [5] [6], while others argued the amendment is not built to substitute for electoral choices and stressed practical/legal limits on its use [7]. Sources make clear both camps existed in the immediate aftermath and across subsequent commentary [6] [7].
7. Bottom line and caveats about “serious attempts”
If “serious attempts” means coordinated, formal use of Section 4 — by Pence plus a majority of the Cabinet — available reporting does not document that occurring; instead, there were widespread public calls, internal discussions reported in some outlets, and legal analysis that the threshold for action was unlikely to be met [2] [1]. If “serious attempts” is read more broadly to include political pressure, public appeals and opinion pieces urging invocation, then those efforts were plentiful and prominent [1] [5].
Limitations: available sources do not provide evidence of any completed Section 4 filing or a Cabinet majority letter in early January 2021; sources summarize public calls, reporting of private consideration and extensive legal debate but do not document a formal invocation [2] [1] [3].