Move to invoke 25th amendment
Executive summary
Invoking the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president requires a constitutional procedure, not a unilateral “move,” and the involuntary-removal provision in Section 4 has never been used in U.S. history [1] — any effort therefore faces steep legal, institutional and political hurdles that are as consequential as they are unprecedented [2] [3].
1. What the 25th Amendment actually provides
The amendment, ratified in 1967, clarifies succession and procedures for filling vacancies in the presidency and vice presidency and creates mechanisms for both voluntary and involuntary transfers of presidential power [4] [2]; Section 1 makes clear that if a president dies, resigns or is removed the vice president becomes president, and Section 2 governs nominations to fill a vacant vice presidency [1].
2. The difference between routine transfers and forcible removal
Historically the amendment has been used for temporary, voluntary transfers of power — for example when presidents temporarily relinquished duties for medical procedures — but the provision that would allow the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers to declare a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties” (Section 4) has never been invoked [5] [1]; that untested Section 4 is the narrow, high-stakes path opponents mean when they call to “invoke the 25th Amendment” [1] [6].
3. How a Section 4 move would actually proceed, step by step
Under the text and legal guidance, the vice president and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (the Cabinet) submit a written declaration to Congress that the president is unable to perform the duties of office, after which the vice president immediately assumes the powers as acting president; if the president contests, Congress then must decide within 21 days by a two‑thirds vote of both Houses to sustain the Cabinet-led declaration, or else the president resumes office [1] [2] [7].
4. Practical, legal and political obstacles to success
Because Section 4 has never been used, there is no settled practice on assessing “inability,” many Cabinet members may be politically loyal or risk criminal or civil exposure, and the filing triggers a high-stakes congressional supermajority requirement that is difficult to achieve in a polarized era — scholars and legal observers emphasize the untested nature and potential constitutional clash between the executive branch and Congress that would follow [1] [3] [6].
5. The current political context and competing remedies
Calls by some Democrats and commentators to “invoke the 25th” over President Trump’s recent conduct — including specific episodes cited by lawmakers — reflect frustration and a search for immediate remedies, but those calls coexist with parallel options such as impeachment and criminal investigation that have clearer historical precedent and institutional pathways [8] [9] [10]; public advocates and legal analysts differ on whether political actors will prefer the novel Section 4 route or the more familiar impeachment process [3].
6. Bottom line: what “move to invoke 25th Amendment” realistically means now
A “move” would require the vice president to join a majority of Cabinet secretaries in a written declaration to Congress and would almost certainly trigger a constitutional and political showdown because Section 4 is untested and demands congressional supermajorities to sustain removal — in short, it is legally available but politically fraught and historically unprecedented, and advocates and skeptics alike should expect protracted litigation and a deeply polarized congressional vote if pursued [1] [2] [3].