Will the 25th Amendment be used during Trump's Presidency?
I assess a relatively low probability that the 25th Amendment will be used (involuntary or voluntary transfer) during President Trump’s current term — about 18% — because the constitutional and political hurdles are high despite elevated health scrutiny and the president’s advanced age.
Analysis
**Stage 1 — Blind analysis (ignore market price):**
*Summary of baseline reasoning:* The 25th Amendment (Section 3 and, more dramatically, Section 4) has a high procedural and political threshold. Historically it has never been used to involuntarily remove a sitting president. The Amendment requires either the president’s voluntary transfer (Section 3) or the vice president plus a majority of principal department heads to declare incapacity (Section 4), and in the latter case Congress can override with a two-thirds vote in both chambers. That combination — need for VP + majority of Cabinet to initiate, plus very high Congressional supermajority to finalize a contested removal — makes involuntary use extremely costly and rare.
*Health and timing considerations:* President Trump is in an age cohort with materially elevated risk of acute medical events (e.g., stroke, heart attack) and of progressive cognitive decline versus younger presidents. Elevated public and congressional scrutiny — exemplified by Rep. Raskin’s June 18, 2026 letter requesting full specialist reports and a neuropsychological evaluation — increases the chance that a real medical problem, if it appears, will be documented and propagated to decision-makers. However, the current material contains no evidence that the vice president or a majority of the Cabinet have begun any Section 4 process, and outside calls for transparency do not satisfy the Amendment’s procedural requirements.
*Probability synthesis:* Given (A) high constitutional and political friction against involuntary use, (B) strong likelihood of Cabinet and VP loyalty to Trump (reducing the willingness to declare incapacity without overwhelming medical evidence), and (C) non-zero elevated medical risk due to age and stress, my independent probability for any use of the 25th Amendment during the term is low but meaningfully above zero. I estimate an 18% probability that the 25th Amendment will be used before Jan 20, 2029. This includes both scenarios where the president voluntarily transfers power for planned medical procedures (Section 3) and the much less likely involuntary Section 4 invocation.
**Stage 2 — Market calibration (compare to market price Yes: 26%):**
The market price (Yes = 26%) is materially higher than my independent assessment (18%). Possible explanations for the market's higher pricing include:
- *News-driven risk premium:* Media attention to the Raskin letter and continued speculation about cognitive fitness can drive short-term demand from traders who overweight headlines and recent salience. Markets often price salient narrative risk higher than analytic base rates. - *Fat-tail concern and upside imbalance:* Some traders may see a small chance of a sudden, decisive medical event (e.g., stroke, collapse) as a fat-tail event and therefore pay more than the base-rate to hedge or speculate on that outcome. That pushes price up relative to my base-case estimate. - *Political-arbitrage players:* Political bettors sometimes overweigh institutional uncertainty and underweight the practical loyalty of Cabinet/VP — especially in a high-polarization environment where many expect unconventional political moves.
Why I think the market may be mispricing (overpricing) the event by ~8 percentage points:
- The market appears to conflate increased scrutiny and demands for transparency with imminent procedural action. The factual record so far shows only requests for documentation, not initiation by the VP and Cabinet, which is the operative trigger. - The mechanical barriers (VP + majority Cabinet; Congress 2/3 if contested) make involuntary removal an extreme outlier event unless there is an overt, incontrovertible medical emergency. Traders often underweight institutional inertia.
However, note two caveats where the market could be reasonable or even conservative:
- If the market incorporates repeated voluntary Section 3 transfers (e.g., transfers for multiple surgical procedures or imaging under anesthesia), those are easier to occur than involuntary removal. I included such possibilities in my 18% figure but some traders may weight them more heavily. - Tail risk of an acute incapacitating event is genuinely non-zero and can materialize quickly; if bettors have good information about nonpublic medical events, prices could rationally move higher.
Overall calibration: I view the market as slightly overvaluing the probability of 25th Amendment usage vs. my independent assessment. That suggests a modest arbitrage opportunity for traders who believe the institutional and political frictions will prevent invocation unless a major medical crisis occurs.
Arguments
For
- Advanced age and the statistical increase in acute medical/neurological events raise baseline physical risk during the multi-year term.
- Heightened scrutiny and formal congressional requests for specialist reports increase the likelihood that any medical problem would be documented and escalated to decision-makers.
- Voluntary use of Section 3 is a straightforward path and could occur for routine procedures requiring anesthesia; this is a lower-friction mechanism than involuntary Section 4.
- A sudden, unequivocal incapacitating event (e.g., stroke in the Oval Office) would create a scenario where the VP and a majority of the Cabinet feel compelled to act to protect continuity.
Against
- The 25th Amendment’s practical triggers require the VP plus a majority of principal department heads (and Congress’s potential 2/3 override), creating very high political and institutional friction against involuntary use.
- Historically the Amendment has not been used to remove a president involuntarily; norms and the heavy political cost make such an action an extreme outlier absent incontrovertible medical evidence.
- Vice president and Cabinet members are likely to be politically aligned with the president and thus reluctant to initiate Section 4 based solely on partisan or ambiguous allegations.
- Current public developments (Raskin letter, calls for transparency) are about disclosure and do not constitute or indicate initiation of the formal amendment process.
Key drivers
- President's age and objective medical events (stroke, cardiac episode, acute illness)
- Vice President's loyalty and willingness to initiate Section 4
- Cabinet composition and allegiance (majority willingness to sign a Section 4 declaration)
- Public and Congressional pressure generated by medical reports or clear neurocognitive testing
- Use of Section 3 voluntarily for planned procedures requiring anesthesia
- Media salience and information shocks (leaks, confidential medical findings)
Risk factors
- Sudden incapacitating medical emergency (stroke, cardiac arrest, severe infection) that incapacitates the president
- Substantive, documented neurocognitive impairment revealed by a specialist or neuropsychological testing
- Breakdown in loyalty from VP or multiple Cabinet members due to political or personal reasons
- Misleading public statements about health that, if contradicted by leaked medical records, could accelerate formal action
- High-pressure political environment or national emergency where removal is argued as necessary
Scenarios
Best case
For the 'Yes' side: A clear, acute medical incapacitation occurs (e.g., stroke, collapse) with immediate, verifiable clinical findings. The vice president and a majority of Cabinet members rapidly conclude the president cannot discharge duties and invoke Section 4 (or the president voluntarily invokes Section 3 for an extended incapacity). Because the medical evidence is decisive, Congress either does not contest or fails to muster a 2/3 override, and the transfer of power stands.
Most likely
A mix: continued public and congressional pressure for transparency, possibly one or more voluntary short-term Section 3 transfers for routine procedures (brief, documented transfers of power), but no involuntary Section 4 invocation. Headlines and speculation spike around any health incident, but institutional resistance prevents formal 25th Amendment removal unless an unambiguous incapacitating event occurs.
Worst case
For 'No': No formal use of the 25th Amendment occurs despite recurring concerns. The administration resists disclosure, medical episodes are handled privately or attributed to non-incapacitating causes, and the VP and Cabinet refuse to act absent incontrovertible proof. Public scrutiny continues but the legal mechanism remains unused through Jan 20, 2029.
More from this day
- CompaniesKalshi1y
Starbucks total global stores in 2026
AI65%MKT9%Edge+56Hidden GemI assess a better-than-even chance that Starbucks will report more than 41,800 global stores in 2026 — the company is already near that threshold and management growth targets make reaching +800 net stores plausible despite closures and remodeling.
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Will Trump take back the Panama Canal?
AI3%MKT32%Edge-29HypedIndependent assessment: ~3% probability that Donald Trump will successfully "take back" the Panama Canal during his term (through force, coercive seizure, or formal transfer of sovereignty). Forcible seizure is effectively zero; the small residual probability reflects low‑likelihood diplomatic/coercive scenarios or semantic/contractual reinterpretations of "take back."
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Who will Trump pardon?
AI15%MKT44%Edge-29HypedI assess a 15% chance that Barron Trump will receive a presidential pardon before Jan 21, 2029 — low because there is no current legal exposure and pardoning a family member carries heavy political cost, but nonzero because presidents can and sometimes do issue preemptive clemency and Trump has shown a willingness to use pardons broadly.