The 25th Amendment to the US Constitution: Some Observations in the Light of Recent Events
President Donald Trump vented his unbridled fury in a Truth Social post on the morning of Easter Sunday, 5 April 2026, when he called upon the Iranian regime to ‘Open the F—in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” His somewhat intemperate language and a message not in keeping with the solemnity of the occasion inevitably renewed calls for invocation of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, and not just from Democratic lawmakers but also from some luminaries on the right of the political spectrum.
The 25th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1967, in the aftermath of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It is meant to standardise the procedures to replace either the President or Vice President in the event of death, resignation, removal, or incapacity. Section 4 of the Amendment enables the removal of a President deemed incapable of carrying out his duties by the Vice President and a majority of the 15-member Cabinet. The Vice President thereupon takes over as Acting President. The deposed President can still challenge this decision, which then requires the backing of a two-thirds majority in Congress. Section 4 has, however, never been invoked in the past. Given the unstinting support for the President from his loyal Vice President and handpicked Cabinet, it seems highly unlikely that Section 4 will be invoked on this occasion, at least in the near future.
The question then arises as to how one can determine the capacity of a sitting President. The public can of course judge executive performance for themselves, especially when the incumbent takes to social media seven days a week to lay open his mind with a continuous barrage of unfiltered content. President Trump’s recent comments on social media, in press interviews, and in formal addresses to the nation have been noted for their verbosity; a continuous flow of thought, drifting between unrelated topics; internal inconsistencies; conspiratorial content; occasional difficulties in finding the right words to describe what he appears to be trying to get across; and inappropriateness under the given circumstances.
Some commentators have referred to Trump’s cognitive decline, while others have taken matters further and claim to have detected the makings of dementia-a condition which his father had been diagnosed with. The President himself has claimed to have overperformed in cognitive function tests, having “aced” the Montreal Cognitive Assessment on more than one occasion. At the same time, he has commented adversely on the cognitive decline and “low IQs” of his political opponents and other people he actively dislikes. Under these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for members of the public to have concerns over the physical and mental health of their leader, particularly when this can adversely affect critical decision-making under wartime conditions. On the other hand, it is unreasonable, as well as unethical, to diagnose dementia from a distance and without the subject’s informed consent, no matter how unappealing their personality may be. The Goldwater Rule (Section 7.3 of the American Psychiatric Association’s ‘Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry’) provides professional guidance in this matter. This rule was established in 1973- in response to a 1964 article in the now-defunct ‘Fact’ magazine which confirmed that ‘1, 189 Psychiatrists say Goldwater is Psychologically Unit to be President!’-a ‘fact” that may have helped end Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater’s chances of becoming President. Goldwater’s Rule states that “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” Goldwater’s Rule has its detractors, leading some psychiatrists and psychologists to go public with their concerns, in the belief that they have an “ethical responsibility” to warn the American public about the critical state of Trump’s mental health.
While there have been several recent calls to remove President Trump by invoking Article 4 of the 25th Amendment, it seems most unlikely that this will happen over the days and weeks to come. As long as the President retains the unqualified support of his Cabinet, any external pressures to the contrary will prove futile. But given the current fluid state of American politics, who can predict where we will find ourselves next year?
Ashis Banerjee