Talks of impeachment are certainly following President Donald Trump as the 2026 midterms grow closer. Democrats would then have the opportunity to flip the House of Representatives, and it’s only then that they can bring impeachment articles against Trump. It’s a plan that’s been whispered among Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and N.Y. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Still, one expert is pushing pause on any attempts to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump.
In its original language, the 25th Amendment, which was ratified in 1967, outlines the clear and formal procedures for what would happen if a sitting president were to resign, be removed or die while in office. According to constitutional scholar John Feerick, who helped craft the amendment in the 1960s, there are a few misconceptions that need clearing up when it comes to the amendment, however.
In his recent article published in POLITICO, Feerick explained that the amendment was never intended to serve as a partisan weapon. Instead, it was designed to ensure a smooth transition of power during emergencies where any president becomes physically or mentally unable to perform the duties of office.
“As the world becomes more polarized and political parties more divided, the 25th Amendment is increasingly seen as a tool for presidential removal without a full understanding of its provisions and limitations,” he wrote.
The amendment was born during a time when concerns over presidential well–being were great– take the illnesses of President Dwight D. Eisenhower or the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Americans needed a contingency plan, and while the 25th has served the country well since its inception, Feerick said folks are misinterpreting Section 4 of the amendment, which allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare a president “unable” to discharge official duties.
According to Feerick, the provision is to be used strictly in catastrophic situations, not simply controversial behavior, unpopular decisions or political disagreements. As calls to invoke the amendment against President Trump intensify, however, Feerick cautioned Americans against stretching the amendment beyond its intended purpose– or that of any historic part of U.S. history and legislation.
“Its continued relevance makes it all the more important that it be understood as it was intended — as a way to ensure the continuity of government, not as a way to address presidential wrongdoing,” he continued in POLITICO. “I cannot help but think that in the last eight years, provisions of the Constitution with respect to the presidency have been placed in an unfavorable light — the Electoral College system, the impeachment and removal provisions and the 25th Amendment.”
