Will the 25th Amendment be used during Trump's Presidency?
I assess an 8% chance the 25th Amendment will be used during Trump's presidency — highly unlikely absent a sudden serious medical incapacity or an unprecedented political revolt within the executive branch.
Analysis
**Stage 1 — Blind analysis (ignore market prices):**
The 25th Amendment is narrowly tailored to presidential incapacity, not misconduct. Invoking it requires either a voluntary written declaration by the President (Section 3) or a written declaration by the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet (Section 4), with a two-thirds Congressional override required if the President contests. Historically its use has been limited to temporary, routine medical procedures. Given those structural constraints, the probability that it will be used in any non-medical sense during this term is very low.
Empirically, the most plausible pathways are: (A) a short, voluntary transfer of power for a planned medical procedure (Section 3); (B) an involuntary, urgent invocation following an acute medical event (stroke, heart attack, severe incapacitation) where the VP and Cabinet conclude the President cannot discharge duties (Section 4); or (C) a political removal attempt where the VP and Cabinet determine incapacity for non-medical reasons. Path A is possible but rare and generally involves predictable medical care — historically used for anesthesia during operations or colonoscopies. Path B is low-probability but non-zero because of the President's age and the general population risk of sudden incapacitating illness. Path C is essentially implausible absent an extreme, unprecedented breakdown of party loyalty and is constrained by political cost to the VP/Cabinet and the high Congressional threshold for sustaining removal.
Putting numbers on these qualitatively different paths (and summing them) gives a reasonable independent estimate: ~3% chance of a voluntary, temporary transfer for a medical procedure; ~4% chance of an involuntary or emergency medical incapacitation that prompts Section 4 action by VP/Cabinet (but not contested into a successful Congressional removal); ~1% chance of a political-internal determination of incapacity (very unlikely). Combined, that yields roughly an 8% independent probability that the 25th Amendment will be used at least once during the remainder of the presidency.
Key contextual points supporting a low probability: there are no current signs of incapacity; the Vice President (J.D. Vance) and the Cabinet largely align with the President; and the political cost and practical obstacles to a Section 4 removal are enormous. Factors nudging the probability slightly above zero are the President's age and the multi-year time horizon (more exposure to possible health events).
**Stage 2 — Market calibration (compare to market prices):**
The market prices Yes at ~26% and No at ~74%. My independent 8% estimate is materially lower than the market-implied 26% probability. Several reasons can explain the gap:
- *Misinterpretation of the question*: Some participants may conflate impeachment, criminal indictment outcomes, or other removal mechanisms with ‘‘use’’ of the 25th Amendment, driving bets that are about general removal risk rather than the specific narrow legal threshold for incapacity. - *Tail-hedging and headline risk premium*: Traders may be pricing extreme but headline-making scenarios (assassination attempts, severe health crises) at elevated odds because such events would generate sudden liquidity demand or hedge needs; that inflates short-term probabilities beyond my baseline. - *Overweighting political volatility*: Given Trump's polarizing style, some bettors may over-index on the chance of an internal party revolt or Cabinet action as a route to remove him, despite institutional and partisan frictions that make that route unlikely. - *Liquidity and flow effects*: Large positions or coordinated action by a few players can move the market and create momentum that diverges from fundamentals.
Taken together, these market dynamics plausibly explain why the market price sits about three times my independent estimate. If one accepts the structural hurdles and historical rarity of 25th Amendment use, the market appears to be overpricing the probability; conversely, if one assigns higher likelihood to acute health shocks or unprecedented political rupture, the market may be closer to fair value. My view: the market is likely mispriced on the high side, presenting an edge to contrarian trades favoring No.
Arguments
For
- **There exists a non-zero medical tail risk.** The President is older, and over a multi-year term the probability of an acute incapacitating medical event is meaningful even if small.
- **Section 3 allows voluntary, temporary transfers.** If the President undergoes a medical procedure requiring anesthesia, the President could transmit a written declaration to temporarily transfer powers — this is the historically most common and least controversial route.
- **Political crisis could spawn extraordinary measures.** In an extreme scenario where the President is perceived as incapacitated to the point of jeopardizing governance (medical or cognitive), political actors might consider the 25th as a solution rather than wait for impeachment or elections.
- **Public safety or national-security incidents could trigger emergency use.** A catastrophic event that physically incapacitates the President would force the VP/Cabinet to act quickly under the Amendment’s text.
Against
- **High formal thresholds and procedural barriers.** Section 4 requires a majority of Cabinet plus the VP, and a contested removal requires two-thirds of both Congressional chambers — an extremely high bar politically and procedurally.
- **Historical rarity and narrow legal intent.** The 25th was designed for incapacity, not misconduct; historically it has only been used for routine, temporary medical accommodations, underscoring its exceptional nature.
- **Current political alignments make invocation implausible.** As of June 2026, the Vice President and Cabinet are largely aligned with the President, and key conservative media/figures oppose internal removal efforts — making coordinated action unlikely.
- **Political cost to the VP/Cabinet is enormous.** Any move to remove a sitting President risks major backlash within the President’s party and could end the political careers of those who act — a strong deterrent.
Key drivers
- President's physical and cognitive health (age-related medical risk and any emergent diagnoses)
- Vice President and Cabinet loyalty — willingness to declare incapacity
- Congressional composition and appetite to sustain a contested Section 4 removal (two-thirds threshold)
- Timing and horizon (longer term increases chance of a medical event)
- Public opinion and political costs to the VP/Cabinet for invoking the 25th
Risk factors
- Sudden acute medical event (e.g., stroke, heart attack, severe traumatic injury) that materially incapacitates the President
- A voluntary transfer of power for planned but politically sensitive medical procedures
- A severe intra-party rupture where key Cabinet members or the VP break with the President
- Market mispricing driven by conflation with impeachment or other removal mechanisms
- High-impact but low-probability external events (assassination attempt, severe attack) that force an immediate incapacity decision
Scenarios
Best case
For the 'Yes' outcome: A narrowly defined, observable medical event (e.g., acute stroke) incapacitates the President while in office. The Vice President and a majority of Cabinet promptly transmit a Section 4 declaration to Congress to ensure continuity of government. The invocation is brief and either results in a smooth transition back if the President recovers or, in a rarer case, sustained transfer if the President remains incapacitated.
Most likely
No invocation: The 25th Amendment is not used. Routine political and legal battles (impeachment talk, investigations, policy fights) persist, and any health issues are either minor, handled via private medical care, or resolved without a formal Section 3/4 transfer. The high constitutional and political thresholds, combined with Cabinet/VP alignment, keep formal use of the 25th improbable.
Worst case
For the 'No' outcome (i.e., the 25th is NOT used): No formal use occurs despite severe political dysfunction. Removal attempts instead occur through impeachment (prosecutorial and legislative processes) or the resolution of the situation is left to the electorate in the next election. A severe health incident might be managed informally without formal 25th invocation, producing governance ambiguity and public controversy.
More from this day
- FinancialsKalshi13y
Will OpenAI or Anthropic IPO first?
AI25%MKT83%Edge-58HypedI assess a 25% chance that OpenAI will IPO before Anthropic. Anthropic's earlier confidential filing and high probability of a late‑2026 announcement make it the clear favorite to go public first.
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Who will Trump pardon?
AI10%MKT46%Edge-36HypedI assess a low but non-zero chance (~10%) that Barron Trump will receive a presidential pardon before Jan 21, 2029 — legally possible (preemptive pardons exist) but politically unlikely given no current charges or investigations.
- HealthKalshi2y
What will the average number of measles cases be during Trump's term?
AI65%MKT30%Edge+35Hidden GemInterpreting the market question as whether the 2025–2028 average will exceed 1,500 measles cases/year, I assess a 65% chance that the four-year average will be >1,500 cases/year based on the already large 2026 total and persistent drivers lowering population immunity.