Renewed Focus on a Powerful Constitutional Tool
In recent weeks, a growing chorus of political figures and commentators has reignited a national conversation about the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically its potential use to remove President Donald Trump from office. Citing concerns over his fitness and recent executive actions, prominent voices are questioning whether the time has come to invoke this powerful, yet rarely used, constitutional provision.
The debate has been fueled by several recent events, most notably President Trump’s removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. This action prompted sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers. On August 30, 2025, Representative Maxine Waters of California described the president’s actions as “extraordinarily dangerous” and called for an immediate review of his fitness for office. “It is time to call for [the] 25th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to determine his unfitness, to determine that something’s wrong with this president,” Waters stated during an MSNBC appearance.
What is the 25th Amendment?
Ratified on February 10, 1967, the 25th Amendment was created to clarify the procedures for presidential and vice-presidential succession and disability. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy highlighted ambiguities in the Constitution regarding what should happen if a president becomes incapacitated. The amendment is divided into four key sections:
- Section 1: States that the vice president becomes president if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office.
- Section 2: Allows the president to nominate a new vice president, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress, if the vice presidency becomes vacant.
- Section 3: Permits the president to temporarily transfer their powers to the vice president by submitting a written declaration. This has been used by presidents undergoing medical procedures.
- Section 4: The most controversial and relevant to the current debate, this section allows for the involuntary removal of a president. It can be invoked if the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet declare in writing that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
If the president contests this declaration, Congress must decide the issue. A two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate is required to keep the vice president in charge as acting president. As detailed by digitaltrendstoday.com, this high threshold makes the involuntary removal of a president a deliberately difficult process.
Historical Precedent and Current Calls for Action
While Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the amendment have been invoked on several occasions, Section 4 has never been used. Section 2 was notably used twice in quick succession in the 1970s: first when Gerald Ford was appointed to replace Vice President Spiro Agnew, and again when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed to fill the vice presidency after Richard Nixon’s resignation made Ford president.
The current calls for invoking Section 4 against President Trump are not limited to Representative Waters. On September 24, 2025, “The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg also suggested it might be time to consider the amendment. These calls are echoed by advocacy groups and public petitions. The organization Free Speech For People has documented numerous grounds for impeachment and supports removal, while a petition on MoveOn.org urges Congress to act immediately under either the 25th Amendment or through impeachment.
Critics point to what they describe as erratic behavior and an abuse of power. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz suggested Trump’s ultimate goal is to remove Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, thereby meddling with the nation’s economic stability for personal or political gain. Lisa Cook, the removed Fed governor, has filed a lawsuit arguing her dismissal lacked legal justification, a case that could reach the Supreme Court.
A High Constitutional Bar
Despite the escalating rhetoric, invoking Section 4 remains a monumental challenge. The process is initiated not by Congress or the public, but by the president’s own vice president and a majority of his appointed Cabinet secretaries. This creates a high political barrier, as it would require a president’s closest advisors to turn against him. The subsequent requirement of a congressional supermajority further solidifies the president’s position against a purely political removal.
As the debate continues, it underscores a fundamental tension in American democracy: the balance between a powerful executive and the constitutional checks designed to prevent the abuse of that power. While the calls to use the 25th Amendment have grown louder, the path to doing so remains constitutionally steep and politically fraught, leaving the nation to watch as the situation unfolds.
