President Trump holds up his facemask during the first presidential debate at Case Western University and Cleveland Clinic, in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday. President Trump and first lady Melania Trump have tested positive for the coronavirus, the president tweeted early Friday. (Julio Cortez / Associated Press file)

President Trump holds up his facemask during the first presidential debate at Case Western University and Cleveland Clinic, in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday. President Trump and first lady Melania Trump have tested positive for the coronavirus, the president tweeted early Friday. (Julio Cortez / Associated Press file)

Comment: What happens if the president is ‘unable’ to serve?

The law is clear about how illness is handled, but not every contingency is clearly spelled out.

By Brian C. Kalt / Special to The Washington Post

The news that President Trump has tested positive for the coronavirus is stunning on many levels: personal, electoral and legal.

As of now, there is no indication that Trump has more than mild symptoms, let alone a severe case. Nevertheless, it is important for the country to understand in advance what the legal picture might be if his condition significantly worsens. The law is mostly clear about how to handle a president who falls seriously ill, but it’s not hard to envision a legal scenario that spins out of control quickly.

The key provision is the 25th Amendment. The original Constitution provided that the vice president steps in when the president is incapacitated, but it said nothing about how the president’s incapacity was supposed to be determined. As a result, we have had long stretches (when President James Garfield was shot; when President Woodrow Wilson had a stroke) where the vice president should have been in charge but instead the president’s staff or spouse ruled. Enacted in the 1960s after President John Kennedy was assassinated and at the height of the Cold War, the 25th Amendment finally provided a clear process, with the aim of ensuring that there is always a hand at the helm.

Section 3 of the amendment allows the president to transfer power voluntarily to the vice president. To do this, Trump would send formal notice to the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate, declaring that he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Upon transmitting this declaration, Vice President Mike Pence would become acting president; those powers and duties would all go to him. Whenever Trump felt able again, he would send a new declaration and immediately take back control.

Invoking Section 3 is totally up to the president. But for a variety of reasons — the desire to project strength, to maintain continuity and calm, optimism about one’s health, denial about one’s health, paranoia about losing power — presidents are generally unlikely to use this provision unless it is absolutely necessary. Section 3 has been used only three times: once by President Ronald Reagan, twice by President George W. Bush. Each time involved the president receiving general anesthesia for surgery for a few hours. It was not invoked when Reagan was shot and almost killed in 1981; it certainly should have been, but the president and his aides never seriously considered it.

Recognizing that the president might be incapacitated but unwilling to admit it — or, more problematically, unable to admit it because he is unconscious — the 25th Amendment also includes Section 4, which transfers power without the president’s consent. Instead of Trump transmitting his declaration declaring he is “unable,” Pence and a majority of the core members of the Cabinet do so (there are either 14 or 15; it is unclear whether Chad Wolf, the sole acting member of the Cabinet, can legally participate). As in Section 3, power immediately transfers to the vice president.

If Pence and the Cabinet members did invoke Section 4, then whenever Trump felt able enough to resume his duties, he would send a declaration to that effect, kicking off a four-day waiting period during which Pence would stay in control. If Pence and a majority of the Cabinet did not disagree with Trump’s declaration within those four days, Trump would retake his powers. If Pence and the Cabinet did disagree, the question would get kicked to Congress, with Pence in charge in the interim. Unless both houses agreed by a two-thirds majority, within 21 days, that Trump was unable to serve, Trump would retake power. But even if Trump lost the congressional vote, he would not be removed from office, and he could try again and again to retake his powers using the same process.

Section 4 thus stacks the deck heavily in the president’s favor in a contested case; impeachment requires far fewer ducks to be aligned in a row against him. It does so on purpose. The point of Section 4 is to transfer power swiftly and certainly when the president is completely incapacitated (as when he is comatose), but to protect the president from being stripped of power in all but the most clear-cut situations. By making it hard to invoke, Section 4 ensured that it would not be used against a president who was merely “unfit” for office. It really is about incapacitation; the unmanned helm.

The 25th Amendment has an important limit: It only operates when the president is incapacitated and when there is a vice president. The drafters of the amendment recognized that they were leaving a big hole: What if the president and vice president are both incapacitated? But they felt that the amendment was too long and complicated as it was.

So far, there’s no indication that Pence has been exposed to anyone who has tested positive for the virus, and the vice president tested negative Friday morning. But if he were to get sick while Trump does and become incapacitated as well, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is next in line. The Constitution, though, provides no process and no standards for such a transfer of power. What if Pelosi and Pence disagree about his condition? What if Secretary of State Mike Pompeo objects, raising the numerous serious arguments that scholars and lawmakers have made over the decades that it is unconstitutional for congressional officials to be included in the line of succession statute? This could put us in the unacceptable situation of having two people claiming to wield presidential power, with no clear answers about who is right; possibly with an election happening at the same time, or with votes being challenged in court afterward.

The Constitution and the line of succession statute are premised on the notion that our top officials will proceed sensibly and in good faith, with due regard for the country’s need for steady leadership. But those qualities seem to be in shorter supply today than they were in 1787 and 1967. They are in even shorter supply a month before Election Day.

Again, we should not get ahead of ourselves here. But knowing what danger looms, it’s extraordinarily important not only that Trump quarantine right now, but that Pence stay virus-free and generally healthy as well.

Brian C. Kalt is professor of law at Michigan State University and the author of “Unable: The Law, Politics, and Limits of Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

A semiautomatic handgun with a safety cable lock that prevents loading ammunition. (Dan Bates / The Herald)
Editorial: Adopt permit-to-purchase gun law to cut deaths

Requiring training and a permit to buy a firearm could reduce deaths, particularly suicides.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, March 20

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Fire District 4 shouldn’t need funding increase through levy

A recent Herald article led its readers to believe Fire District 4… Continue reading

Trump administration should make decisions with evidence, care

The Trump administration has embarked on a path of mindless cutting and… Continue reading

Comment: Roberts had to chastise Trump for threat to judge

Calling for the impeachment of judges over rulings has a long history, and it’s why the chief justice spoke up.

Comment: Anti-vax culture war on mRNA may end up costing lives

False theories are discouraging research and prompting legislation to block valuable vaccines.

Comment: DOGE’s real goal is to privatize government services

And it will be red states and rural areas that will pay more for commercial service for mail and more.

FILE - The sun dial near the Legislative Building is shown under cloudy skies, March 10, 2022, at the state Capitol in Olympia, Wash. An effort to balance what is considered the nation's most regressive state tax code comes before the Washington Supreme Court on Thursday, Jan. 26, 2023, in a case that could overturn a prohibition on income taxes that dates to the 1930s. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)
Editorial: One option for pausing pay raise for state electeds

Only a referendum could hold off pay increases for state lawmakers and others facing a budget crisis.

**EMBARGO: No electronic distribution, Web posting or street sales before Saturday at 3:00 a.m. ET on Mar. 1, 2025. No exceptions for any reasons. EMBARGO set by source.** House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, (D-NY) speaks at a news conference about Republicans’ potential budget cuts to Medicaid, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Feb. 27, 2025. As Republicans push a budget resolution through Congress that will almost certainly require Medicaid cuts to finance a huge tax reduction, Democrats see an opening to use the same strategy in 2026 that won them back the House in 2018. (Kenny Holston/The New York Times)
Editorial: Don’t gut Medicaid for richest Americans’ tax cuts

Extending tax cuts, as promised by Republicans, would likely force damaging cuts to Medicaid.

Two workers walk past a train following a press event at the Lynnwood City Center Link Station on Friday, June 7, 2024, in Lynnwood, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Open Sound Transit CEO hiring to public review

One finalist is known; the King County executive. All finalists should make their pitch to the public.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, March 19

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Welch: Lawmakers ignore needs of families with disabled kids

Two bills would have offered financial assistance to families providing home care. Neither survived.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.