Will the 25th Amendment be used during Trump's Presidency?
I assess a roughly 18% chance that the 25th Amendment will be formally used during President Trump’s current term; the institutional bar is high and use is historically rare, but advanced age and medical/extraordinary-event tail risk keep a non-trivial probability.
Analysis
**Stage 1 — Independent (Blind) Analysis — Ignoring Market Prices**
The 25th Amendment has a twofold character: it can be *voluntarily* invoked by a president under Section 3 (temporary transfer of powers) or *involuntarily* invoked under Section 4 (vice president + majority of Cabinet certify inability). Historically the mechanism has been used very rarely and mostly for *short, voluntary* transfers for medical procedures. Formal, involuntary removals have never been successful in partisan, high-stakes environments because the required coalition (VP + majority of Cabinet) creates a heavy political and personal threshold.
Key facts that shape my independent view: (a) the Amendment is legally available but politically costly and procedurally demanding; (b) presidents have strong incentives to avoid voluntary transfers unless medically necessary; (c) Cabinets and vice presidents typically reflect the president's political choices and loyalties, reducing the chance they will form a majority to invoke Section 4 absent a clear, compelling incapacity; (d) the president’s advanced age increases the baseline medical-tail risk of a sudden incapacitating event.
Balancing those points, I break the probability into components: a small baseline chance for a voluntary, procedural use (e.g., for a planned surgical procedure that requires anesthesia) and a larger but still limited tail risk for an involuntary invocation following an acute medical crisis or a major, demonstrable incapacity. Given the heavy political frictions that make Section 4 unlikely in all but the most extreme circumstances, and given historical rarity even across administrations, the combined likelihood over the remainder of the term is modest. I estimate an independent probability of **~18%** that the 25th Amendment will be *formally invoked* (Section 3 or Section 4) during the presidency.
**Stage 2 — Market Calibration**
The current market price (Yes = 25%) is slightly richer than my independent assessment. Possible reasons the market is above my estimate:
- *Public salience and chatter:* Recurrent media discussion and partisan speculation materially raise the number of traders willing to take positions on invocation, often inflating prices above the objective likelihood (betting driven by narratives rather than procedural realities). - *Ambiguity about what counts as "used":* Some traders may believe that serious public debate, Cabinet discussions, or temporary internal designations count as "use," thereby bidding up the Yes price; the market description here clarifies that formal invocation is required. - *Risk aversion/hedging demand:* Market participants with outsized exposure to political risk or institutions might buy Yes as a hedge against extreme political/health shocks, pushing price up.
Countervailing forces that would push market price down (and which I believe the market has only partially priced) include: the unusually high political cost for a VP and Cabinet to pursue Section 4 against a partisan, polarizing president; the historical rarity of formal invocations; and the availability of alternative mechanisms (impeachment, resignation, or internal management of illness) that make the 25th Amendment a less-likely route.
Net assessment: the market at 25% is plausible and close to my independent view, but I judge it slightly *overpriced* (by ~7 percentage points) because narrative-driven demand and conflation of discussion with formal use likely inflate demand. That said, the difference is not large — the market and my independent assessment both reflect non-negligible tail risk tied to age and medical events.
Bottom-line: independent probability ~18%; market at 25% likely modestly overstates the objective chance because of talk-driven demand and definitional ambiguity, though the market is in the right qualitative range given non-zero medical and political tail risks.
Arguments
For
- Advanced age and associated health tail-risk increase the chance of a medical incapacity requiring formal transfer or removal.
- Section 3 voluntary transfers are a low-friction pathway for planned procedures requiring anesthesia, which could be used at least once.
- In a sudden and obvious incapacity (coma, prolonged unconsciousness), the constitutional clarity and speed of the 25th might make it the most practical tool.
- If the vice president and enough Cabinet members conclude that the president is medically or cognitively unfit, a Section 4 invocation is procedurally possible even if politically fraught.
Against
- The formal bar for involuntary removal (VP + majority of Cabinet) creates a very high political threshold that is difficult to reach in a polarized administration.
- Historically the Amendment has been used rarely; norms and deference to the presidency make invocation an exceptional, unlikely outcome absent catastrophic facts.
- Alternative routes (resignation, impeachment, internal medical management) may be used instead of filing the 25th, reducing its relative likelihood.
- The president has strong incentives to avoid voluntary transfers and may resist or circumvent formal mechanisms; Cabinet members and the VP face severe reputational and career costs for initiating Section 4.
Key drivers
- Vice President loyalty and Cabinet composition — required VP + majority of Cabinet for Section 4
- President's age and baseline medical risk (increasing likelihood of acute incapacity or need for medical procedures)
- Political cost and reputational consequences for officials who pursue Section 4
- Precedent and historical rarity of formal 25th usage (makes invocation a high-threshold, exceptional event)
- Alternative constitutional/remedial routes (impeachment, resignation, internal management of incapacity)
- Public attention and media-driven speculation which affects betting but not legal likelihood
Risk factors
- Sudden severe medical event (stroke, heart attack, coma) that makes invoking the 25th the cleanest constitutional route
- A fracture between the president and vice president or defections among Cabinet officials that could produce the required majority
- Legal/interpretive ambiguity of Section 4 procedures that could produce an attempt even without broad consensus
- High-profile unfitness episodes (mental or behavioral) during which political actors determine a removal is necessary
- Mispricing driven by social media and punditry that elevates perceived probability beyond institutional reality
Scenarios
Best case
A clear medical event occurs (for example, a prolonged unconsciousness or incapacitating stroke) that makes the president unable to discharge the powers and duties; the vice president and a majority of Cabinet swiftly certify inability and the 25th Amendment is invoked. This is quick, uncontested, and results in a transfer of power until the president recovers or another constitutional path (e.g., resignation) is chosen.
Most likely
No formal invocation occurs. There may be recurrent public debate, commentary, and calls for invoking the 25th, and there could be voluntary, short-term Section 3 transfers if and only if the president elects to follow that route for planned medical procedures. But an involuntary Section 4 invocation only happens in a clear, unambiguous catastrophe — an outcome judged unlikely over the remaining term.
Worst case
There is a protracted episode of severe dysfunction or erratic behavior but no decisive medical or evidentiary threshold; political allies protect the president, the vice president and Cabinet refuse or are unable to form the required majority, and the 25th is never formally invoked despite widespread debate. The country deals with the crisis via ad hoc, less-legitimate channels or prolonged instability.
More from this day
- HealthKalshi2y
What will the average number of measles cases be during Trump's term?
AI95%MKT30%Edge+65Hidden GemAssuming the market's 'Yes' means the 2025–2028 annual average exceeds 1,000 reported measles cases per year, I assess a very high probability (95%) that the average will be above that threshold given two consecutive >2,000-year starts and durable drivers keeping incidence elevated.
- politicsPolymarketEnded
Where will the next US-Iran diplomatic meeting happen?
AI62%MKT14%Edge+48Hidden GemGiven the short time window and the historically episodic, crisis-driven nature of U.S.–Iran diplomacy, I assess a 62% probability that no qualifying in-person diplomatic meeting will occur by June 30, 2026.
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce: Wedding attendees
AI65%MKT20%Edge+45Hidden GemBased on historical friendship patterns and how celebrity guest lists for close friends typically form, I assess a substantially greater than even chance that Blake Lively would attend a Taylor Swift–Travis Kelce wedding if it takes place — independent probability 65%.