Has trump been invoked with the 25th amendment
Executive summary
No—there has never been a successful invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove or permanently displace Donald J. Trump from the presidency; what occurred instead were urgent discussions, public calls by lawmakers and commentators, and a House resolution urging Vice President Mike Pence to act, but Pence declined and the Cabinet did not invoke Section 4 [1] [2] [3]. Multiple legal commentators and institutions renewed debate about using the amendment after the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and at other moments, but those debates did not translate into a constitutional transfer of power under Section 3 or Section 4 of the amendment [4] [5].
1. What the 25th Amendment actually provides and why it matters
The 25th Amendment creates constitutional mechanisms for temporary or permanent transfer of presidential power if the president is incapacitated: Section 3 allows a president to voluntarily transfer power to the vice president; Section 4 permits the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the president unable to discharge the duties of office, triggering a disputed process that can end in Congress deciding the matter [6] [7]. It was ratified in 1967 to ensure continuity of executive authority and has been used sparingly—most invocations historically involve planned medical procedures rather than contested political incapacity [6] [8].
2. The January 2021 flashpoint: calls, Cabinet talk, and a House resolution
After the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, senior Democrats and some Republicans publicly urged the vice president and Cabinet to use Section 4 to remove President Trump; news reporting documented that some Cabinet members had discussed the option and that Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger was the first GOP lawmaker publicly to call for invocation, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Pence to act [3] [1]. The House of Representatives voted on a nonbinding resolution calling on Vice President Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment; Pence publicly rejected the move, and the Cabinet did not take the step, prompting the House to proceed with a second impeachment instead [2] [3].
3. What “discussions” meant in practice and why no Section 4 occurred
News outlets reported “discussions” among some Cabinet officials about approaching Pence to invoke Section 4, but those reports described internal deliberations rather than formal action—Section 4 requires the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to sign a written declaration transferring power to the vice president, a step that was never taken in this instance [3] [1]. Public pressure, opinion pieces, and think-tank calls urged action, but advisory and advocacy calls (for example from Brookings and others) do not substitute for the constitutional instrument itself, which remained unused [5] [4].
4. Historical context: rarity and precedent
No sitting president has ever been permanently removed by Section 4 of the 25th Amendment; temporary transfers under Section 3 have been used a few times for medical procedures, and constitutional scholars have long warned that the political and legal thresholds for Section 4 make it an awkward, fraught remedy for disputes over fitness [8] [7]. The legal process contemplates immediate transfer with a subsequent congressional adjudication, which was part of lawmakers’ calculus during the January 2021 crisis and explains why some preferred impeachment as a clearer, more political path to accountability [8] [2].
5. Competing remedies, political realities, and the lessons learned
Advocates argued the 25th Amendment offered the fastest route to remove a president they viewed as a danger, but opponents stressed constitutional limits, institutional loyalty, and the risk of precedent—Vice President Pence’s refusal and the Cabinet’s inaction showed how political constraints and concerns about destabilizing norms can block a Section 4 move even when public calls are loud [3] [2]. Legal scholars and commentators continue to debate whether Section 4 is suited to political crises as opposed to clear medical incapacity, a debate that was reignited around Trump but did not produce an invocation [4] [7].
6. Bottom line
Despite sustained public debate, documented Cabinet discussions, and a House vote urging action after January 6, 2021, the 25th Amendment was never invoked to remove or temporarily displace Donald Trump; the option remained available in theory but unused in practice, and Congress instead pursued impeachment as the principal institutional response [3] [2] [1]. Reporting and institutional analyses cited here confirm the difference between advocacy and the constitutional act itself: calls and discussions occurred, but no Section 4 declaration was executed [3] [4].