Was section 4 of the 25th amendment invoked
Executive summary
Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment has never been invoked in U.S. history; it remains an unused constitutional mechanism for removing a president deemed unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office [1] [2] [3]. There have been moments when it was seriously considered or prepared for—most notably after the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan and in the chaotic aftermath of January 6, 2021—but on each occasion officials stopped short of formally activating Section 4 [2] [1].
1. What Section 4 is and who can use it
Section 4 authorizes the vice president together with a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (the Cabinet) or another body that Congress may designate to declare the president “unable” and transfer the powers and duties to the vice president; the provision is explicitly distinct from Section 3, which the president can invoke voluntarily to transfer power temporarily [4] [3] [5].
2. A clean historical record: never invoked
Across the amendment’s life since ratification in 1967, Section 4 has never been used to deprive a sitting president of authority; scholars, government institutions and public-facing histories all report that while Sections 2 and 3 have been invoked or used in practice, Section 4 remains unexecuted [1] [6] [3] [2].
3. Near-invocations that shaped the myth of use
There have been high-profile instances in which administrations drafted papers or debated the use of the amendment: after the March 30, 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan, administration lawyers prepared letters that would have effectuated the transfer, but those documents were never signed and Section 4 was not formally invoked [2] [7]. Similarly, in the wake of the January 6 Capitol attack some officials and members of Congress discussed using Section 4 as a remedy, and top leaders reportedly urged Vice President Pence to consider it, yet no formal action occurred [1].
4. Frequent confusion with Section 3: why people think it’s been used
Public confusion often conflates Section 4 with Section 3, which has been used several times for routine medical procedures—presidents have temporarily transferred power to their vice presidents when undergoing anesthesia (for example, George W. Bush in 2002 and 2007 and Joe Biden in 2021) and such transfers are well-documented and procedural under Section 3, not Section 4 [3] [7] [8].
5. Legal and practical obstacles that explain non‑use
Lawyers and scholars point to Section 4’s procedural complexity, political risk, and ambiguity—questions about who counts as a “principal officer,” the risk of a president firing Cabinet members to evade a vote, and an absence of definitive Supreme Court interpretation have all contributed to its nonuse and the caution of officials [9] [6] [5].
6. Alternative viewpoints and hidden agendas
Advocates for invoking Section 4 in extreme cases argue it was designed as an emergency safety valve against presidential incapacity; critics warn that its extraordinary nature and political weaponization risks make its use fraught and potentially destabilizing, an argument reflected in contemporary commentary and legal analysis about both its necessity and vulnerability to misuse [5] [9].
7. What the record permits and where reporting is thin
Primary sources and institutional histories uniformly report the same baseline fact—that Section 4 remains unused—while documentary accounts explain episodes when it was contemplated; beyond those documented near-invocations, existing reporting and legal commentary outline risks and unsettled legal questions, but no evidence in the provided sources indicates any formal activation of Section 4 [1] [2] [6].