US5 min(s) read
Democrats can now start process that triggers never-before-used rule to get Trump out of the White House
.jpg_I4Ebof?tr=cr-0.338.2730.3068,f-webp,q-70,w-100)
When the 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967, it included a provision that has never been used.
Congress was given the power to create an independent body that could, together with the Vice President, declare a sitting president unfit to serve and transfer power immediately.
In the 59 years since, Congress has never created that body.
The provision has sat there, unused, waiting for someone to activate it.
Tonight, Democrats took the House - or are at least projected to.
They are on track to take the Senate, too.
That means that when the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, they will have the votes to do something that has never been done in American history: establish a formal commission with the legal authority to assess whether the President of the United States is mentally and physically capable of doing his job.
What Section 4 of the 25th Amendment actually says
Most people know the 25th Amendment as the thing that transfers power to the Vice President if a president dies or resigns.
Section 4 covers something different: what happens when a president is alive but unable to function.
The text says the Vice President and a majority of 'the principal officers of the executive departments, or of such other body as Congress may by law provide' can declare the president 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office'.
At that point, the Vice President 'immediately' assumes power as Acting President.
The critical phrase is 'such other body as Congress may by law provide'.
That is the way in.
Congress can create a commission, independent of Trump's own cabinet, and give it the legal standing to make that determination alongside the Vice President.
Pelosi tried this in 2020
Six years ago, Nancy Pelosi and Representative Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor from Maryland, introduced the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office Act.
The bill would have created a 17-member permanent commission made up of physicians, former presidents, former vice presidents, and former secretaries of state.
Congressional leaders from both parties would have chosen the members.
The commission would have had the power to conduct medical examinations of a sitting president and report its findings to Congress.
It went nowhere. Republicans controlled the Senate. The bill died without a vote.
Raskin has not left Congress. He is still there. The legislation has already been written, and the party that blocked it last time is realistically about to lose control of both chambers.
What the commission could do
If Democrats pass the legislation and establish the commission, the body would have the constitutional authority to assess the president's fitness for office. If the commission and the Vice President together agreed that the president was unable to serve, power would transfer to JD Vance immediately.
The president can dispute the finding.
If he does, Congress votes. It takes a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to sustain the removal. Democrats will almost certainly not have two-thirds of either chamber, which means Trump could almost certainly block it.
But the process itself is the point.
Why the process matters even without removal
A formal, legally constituted, bipartisan commission of physicians and former officeholders publicly assessing the president's mental and physical fitness would be unprecedented.
Even if Trump disputes the finding and survives the congressional vote, the commission's report would become a permanent part of the public record.
It would force JD Vance to make a choice on the record: does he side with the medical commission or with Trump? Either path would define the rest of his political career.
It would create weeks, possibly months, of testimony, medical evidence, and expert analysis playing out on live television.
Every slurred word, every arm spasm, every confused moment that has been documented by forensic psychologists and journalists over the past year would become exhibits in a formal government proceeding.
It would shift the conversation from opinion columns and TikTok videos to a constitutional mechanism with legal authority.
The question of whether Trump is fit to serve would no longer be speculation. It would be an official inquiry.
The evidence that already exists
Forensic psychologist Dr John Paul Garrison has spent months documenting what he describes as Trump's progressive neurological decline, including involuntary arm movements, slurred speech, word-finding difficulties, and moments where Trump says things that 'make no sense' and appears 'unaware that he said it'.
The Washington Post reported earlier this year that Trump has gained nearly 25 pounds since his last campaign, with two independent doctors using the phrase 'premature death' when reviewing his medical information.
His own doctor's annual physical produced findings that made headlines. Persistent bruising on his hands required a White House explanation.
He was not seen in public for a full week in June.
Tonight's exit polls showed that more than half of voters believe Trump does not have the 'mental capability to serve effectively as president'.
That is not a fringe position. It is the majority view of the people who voted today.
None of that is proof of incapacity.
But it is the kind of evidence base that a formally constituted commission would be empowered to investigate properly, with medical professionals, under oath, with access to records that the public has never seen.
Whether Democrats will actually do it
That is the question nobody can answer tonight.
Establishing the commission would be one of the most aggressive constitutional moves in modern American history.
It would be framed by Republicans as a coup attempt.
It would dominate news coverage for months. It would make impeachment look gentle by comparison.
Hakeem Jeffries, who is expected to become Speaker in January, has not publicly committed to pursuing it.
His stated priority is investigations and oversight, not removal. But the legislative framework already exists, the constitutional authority is explicit, and the political environment after tonight's results may make it harder to justify not using every tool available.
The 25th Amendment gave Congress a power it has never exercised.
After 59 years, the party that now controls Congress has both the votes and, for the first time, a body of public evidence that could justify using it.
Whether they will is a different question. But as of tonight, they can.