Scan: Will the 25th Amendment be used during Trump's Presidency?

← Back to scans

Will the 25th Amendment be used during Trump's Presidency? — Before 2029

KXAMEND25-29 · Politics · 2026-05-12

Agent

24%

Market Price

-19.0%

Edge

72%

Confidence

Volume: 132,837

Spread: 1.0c

Days to resolution: 984

Markets in event: 1

Final Rationale

The question explicitly cites Section IV language ('Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet... transmit to Congress a written declaration'), so I REJECT the Devil's Advocate's main challenge that Section III routine transfers should dominate the probability — the resolution criteria as written require Section IV invocation, not voluntary Section III transfers for colonoscopies. However, I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critique on two grounds: (1) ambiguity in how the market might interpret '25th Amendment' broadly creates resolution risk, and (2) my health-event base rate of 18% for an obese 79-82 year old may be modestly conservative. I adjust upward from 2.8% to 5% to account for resolution ambiguity and slightly higher actuarial risk. I diverge sharply from the 24% headline market price because the orderbook signal (~6%) — with yes_bid at $0.06 against deep liquidity — reveals informed traders price this near my estimate; the headline reflects retail sentiment, not consensus. Vance and Cabinet are uniformly loyal, no internal movement exists, and Section IV has never been invoked in 58 years.

Price vs. prediction

How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.

$n = 58$ follow-ups

Re-scan Context

This market has been scanned before. Previous predictions:

Date	Predicted	Market Price	Confidence
2026-04-11	4%	30%	75%

1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan

Tools chosen: kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook article_search web_search wikipedia_lookup code_execution

Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)

Will Trump experience a significant health event (physical or cognitive incapacitation) before January 20, 2029 that could trigger 25th Amendment Section IV? (w=0.35)
Will Vance and a majority of Trump's Cabinet be willing to invoke 25th Amendment Section IV given a triggering event? (w=0.35)
Has the 25th Amendment Section IV ever been formally invoked in US history, establishing precedent that makes this more likely? (w=0.15)
Is there currently any active political movement or credible effort within the Trump administration to use the 25th Amendment against Trump? (w=0.15)

Planner reasoning

This question requires analyzing two independent probability chains: (1) a triggering health/incapacitation event for Trump during his term, and (2) the political willingness of Vance and the Cabinet to formally invoke Section IV. The key reference classes are: (a) actuarial risk for a ~79-82 year old male over ~2.7 years, and (b) the historical base rate of Section IV invocations, which is ZERO — it has never been formally used in US history. Even discussions during the early Trump first term and Biden years never materialized into formal action. The causal mechanism requires both a severe enough physical/cognitive incapacitation AND political actors willing to act against a sitting president of their own party — an extremely high coordination barrier. Vance has strong incentives to remain loyal (political ambitions depend on Trump world), and cabinet secretaries are Trump loyalists. What makes this different from 'could it happen in theory' questions is that even historically obvious candidates (Reagan's late-term cognitive decline, Biden's visible deterioration) never triggered Section IV action. The temporal analysis: for YES to occur, Trump would need to become incapacitated in a way undeniable to the Cabinet, Vance would need to initiate, a majority of Cabinet would need to sign the declaration, and they'd transmit to Congress — a multi-step coordination requiring political will that essentially doesn't exist in Trump's current administration. The market is almost certainly priced very low (1-3%) and the true probability is in that range or lower.

2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2

Tool	Status	Time	Items
kalshi_data	OK	2.1s	-
kalshi_orderbook	OK	0.2s	-
article_search	OK	0.8s	-
web_search	OK	67.9s	-
wikipedia_lookup	OK	1.4s	-
code_execution	OK	0.0s	-

3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 16 items · legacy v2

#	Strength	Credibility	Direction	Source	Claim	Priced In
1	MODERATE	55	↓ DOWN	code_execution	Actuarial modeling estimates ~21% probability of a major health event for Trump over 2.7 years, but only ~1.1% probability of the 25th Amendment being invoked when political willingness factors are incorporated.	No
2	MODERATE	72	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump appeared publicly functional in a full Norah O'Donnell interview (April 26, 2026) and attended Supreme Court arguments for ~75 minutes (April 1, 2026), suggesting no current obvious physical incapacitation.	Yes
3	MODERATE	75	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump gave a 2+ hour interview to the New York Times (January 2026) and delivered a State of the Union address (February 2026), indicating continued public capacity to engage in extended, cognitively demanding activities.	Yes
4	MODERATE	68	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump himself joked about the 25th Amendment during a March 26 Cabinet meeting, suggesting awareness but not incapacitation; the Iran war context has raised Democratic calls but no credible health crisis has been identified.	Yes
5	STRONG	80	↓ DOWN	web_search	Experts assessed that despite Democratic calls for invoking the 25th Amendment in April 2026, it is 'highly unlikely' because Trump has the full support of VP Vance, his Cabinet, and Congressional Republicans.	Yes
6	STRONG	82	↓ DOWN	article_search	Vance is actively projecting loyalty to Trump, supporting Trump's Iran war even at personal political cost, and working to broker internal disputes (e.g., Trump-Musk feud), showing no inclination to break with the president.	Yes
7	STRONG	78	↓ DOWN	article_search	Vance's political future depends on remaining in Trump's good graces and appealing to MAGA voters; invoking the 25th Amendment would be politically suicidal for his 2028 presidential ambitions.	Yes
8	MODERATE	70	↓ DOWN	web_search	Democratic lawmakers (Krishnamoorthi, Crockett) and outside groups (Common Cause, Ty Cobb) called for 25th Amendment invocation in April 2026 over Iran war conduct, but these are opposition/outside voices with no Cabinet standing.	Yes
9	STRONG	85	↓ DOWN	web_search	Even if all Cabinet members voted to invoke the 25th Amendment, the process would not be valid without Vance's participation, and Vance shows no willingness to act against Trump.	Yes
10	STRONG	95	↓ DOWN	wikipedia_lookup	Section IV of the 25th Amendment has never been formally invoked in US history since its adoption in 1967; the historical base rate is zero across 58 years and 10 presidencies.	Yes
11	STRONG	93	↓ DOWN	wikipedia_lookup	Section III (voluntary transfer) has been used multiple times for presidential surgeries, but Section IV (involuntary) has never been used, providing no precedent that lowers the coordination barrier.	Yes
12	STRONG	82	↓ DOWN	web_search	Calls for 25th Amendment invocation came exclusively from Democratic lawmakers and outside critics (April 2026), not from within the Trump administration or Cabinet — no internal movement exists.	Yes
13	WEAK	45	NEUTRAL	web_search	Former Trump White House counsel Ty Cobb called Trump 'clearly insane' and questioned why the Cabinet hasn't invoked the 25th Amendment, but this is an outside critic with no current administration role.	Yes
14	STRONG	75	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump's Cabinet secretaries are confirmed loyalists; there is no reporting of any Cabinet member privately discussing or organizing around 25th Amendment action.	Yes
15	MODERATE	65	↓ DOWN	kalshi_orderbook	The Kalshi orderbook shows yes_bid at $0.06 (6 cents) vs. no_bid at $0.56, with high depth (16,616 contracts), suggesting sophisticated market participants price YES probability extremely low despite headline market price of 24%.	Yes
16	MODERATE	60	↓ DOWN	kalshi_data	The Kalshi market for 25th Amendment invocation before 2029 currently sits at 24%, down 5% in 7 days and down 8% in 30 days, suggesting the market is repricing downward from a recent high of 36%.	Yes

Information Gaps

No detailed medical records or independent physician assessments of Trump's current cognitive or physical health status are publicly available
No reporting on private Cabinet discussions about Trump's fitness or any internal dissatisfaction with his leadership that could seed 25th Amendment conversations
Unclear how the Iran war trajectory might affect Trump's decision-making capacity or whether sustained wartime stress could precipitate a health event
No data on actuarial mortality/incapacitation tables specifically calibrated to Trump's known health profile (obesity, prior COVID, reported blood thinner mistrust)
The large gap between the Kalshi headline price (24%) and the orderbook implied price (~6%) is unexplained — may reflect market structure, liquidity dynamics, or a split between casual and sophisticated traders
No information on whether Congress has designated any alternative body to the Cabinet for 25th Amendment Section IV purposes

Key Uncertainties

Trump's actual health trajectory over the next 2.7 years — a sudden cardiac event or stroke would be the most likely triggering health event but is unpredictable
Whether the Iran war could escalate into a crisis that either incapacitates Trump or creates sufficient political pressure to make Vance reconsider loyalty calculations
Whether an extreme scenario (e.g., Trump becoming completely unresponsive/comatose) would still face Cabinet resistance, or whether even loyalists would act in that extreme case
The Kalshi market price discrepancy (24% headline vs. ~6% implied by orderbook) — which better reflects true market consensus?
Whether Trump could survive an assassination attempt (referenced in the O'Donnell interview context) in a way that leads to temporary incapacitation triggering Section IV

Market Context

Price: 0.24 · 7d: -0.05 · 30d: -0.08
Volume: MODERATE · Depth: HIGH
Reliability: LOW-MEDIUM — The headline market price of 24% appears significantly inflated relative to the orderbook signal (yes_bid=$0.06), suggesting the displayed price may not reflect true market consensus. The large spread ($0.38) and high depth (16,616) with a yes_bid of only 6 cents indicates sophisticated sellers are willing to offer NO at 56 cents, implying they see YES probability well below 50%. The market has been declining steadily (-8% in 30 days). The 24% figure likely reflects retail/casual trader sentiment rather than informed probability assessment.

4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price

Independent estimate: 3% (82% confidence)

base rate

82% conf

evidence driven

82% conf

contrarian

82% conf

Spread

0pp

Low disagreement

sq1: Will Trump experience a significant health event before Jan 20, 2029 that could trigger 25th Amendment Section IV?

18%

Actuarial base rate for a 79-82 year old male over ~2.7 years: roughly 15-25% chance of a major health event (stroke, cardiac event, severe cognitive decline, surgery requiring incapacitation). Trump appears currently functional based on public appearances (NYT interview, SOTU, O'Donnell interview, SCOTUS arguments). However, the question is whether an event 'could trigger' Section IV — meaning any meaningful incapacitation, not necessarily one that does trigger. Estimate ~18% for a qualifying health event over remaining term.

sq2: Will Vance and a majority of Cabinet be willing to invoke Section IV given a triggering event?

Vance is highly loyal, politically dependent on MAGA base, and has actively defended Trump. Cabinet is hand-picked loyalists. Even given a triggering event, the conditional probability of formal invocation is very low — historical analogs (Reagan late-term, Biden) show even visible decline doesn't trigger action. Only an extreme scenario (coma, complete unresponsiveness) might force action, and even then Section III voluntary transfer would likely be preferred. Conditional probability ~8%.

sq3: Has Section IV ever been formally invoked, establishing precedent?

Section IV has never been invoked in 58 years. This is a factual question and the answer is no. Setting to 0.01 floor.

sq4: Is there currently any active internal movement to invoke the 25th Amendment?

All evidence indicates calls come exclusively from Democratic lawmakers and outside critics. No reporting of internal Cabinet dissent or organizing. Vance, Rubio, and other Cabinet members projecting loyalty. ~2%.

Show full reasoning trace

base rate: Section IV has been invoked 0 times in 58 years across 12 presidents — base rate essentially zero. Even Reagan's late-term cognitive issues and Biden's visible decline didn't trigger action. Actuarial health event rate for an 80-year-old president over 2.7 years is ~15-25%, but conversion rate from health event to Section IV invocation is historically zero.

evidence updates: All strong evidence points DOWN: Vance loyalty (strong), Cabinet loyalty (strong), no internal movement (strong), Trump publicly functional (moderate), no precedent (strong). The only paths to YES require extreme scenarios: sudden severe stroke/coma where even loyalists must act, or assassination attempt creating temporary incapacitation. These represent perhaps 2-3% tail risk.

combination method: Used conjunctive logic (P(health event) × P(willingness | event)) rather than pure weighted average, since both conditions must hold for resolution YES. This gives ~1.4%, adjusted upward to ~2.5% to account for black swan scenarios and model uncertainty.

final: Final estimate: 2.5%. High confidence (0.82) given overwhelming convergent evidence from historical base rate, current political configuration, and lack of any internal movement. Main upside risks are sudden severe health event or assassination scenario.

ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.025, 'confidence': 0.82}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.03, 'confidence': 0.82}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.03, 'confidence': 0.82}}, 'spread': 0.005, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.025, 'evidence_driven': 0.03, 'contrarian': 0.03}}

5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed

Missing Info Reasoning Flaw Asymmetric Evidence

Challenges

The conjunctive math is slightly off: 0.18 × 0.08 = 0.0144, but this ignores that sq1 and sq2 are not the only paths. The question resolves YES if Section IV OR Section III is invoked in a way that counts — though the question specifies '25th Amendment' broadly. Section III (voluntary) has been used historically for routine surgeries and is far more likely over 2.7 years than Section IV. If the resolution criteria include Section III transfers (e.g., for a colonoscopy or surgery under anesthesia), the probability should be substantially higher — perhaps 10-20%. The forecaster should clarify resolution criteria; this is a major information gap not flagged.
The forecaster mentions Section III in evidence ('Section III has been used multiple times for presidential surgeries') but doesn't incorporate this into the probability calculation. Bush used it twice for colonoscopies; Biden used it. For an 80-year-old, the probability of needing anesthesia for a medical procedure over 2.7 years is non-trivial. This is the most likely path to YES and appears under-weighted or ignored.
The 18% health event probability may be conservative for an obese 79-82 year old with reported cardiovascular concerns. Actuarial tables for that demographic suggest higher rates of incapacitating events.
Confidence of 0.82 may be too high given the unresolved ambiguity about whether Section III counts toward resolution and the unexplained gap between headline market (24%) and orderbook signal (~6%).

Suggested adjustment: +5pp

The forecast appears to treat this primarily as a Section IV question, but the 25th Amendment includes Section III (voluntary transfer), which has been invoked multiple times historically and is reasonably likely for an 80-year-old over 2.7 years (routine surgery, colonoscopy, etc.). If the resolution criteria include Section III, the true probability is likely 7-10%, not 2.5%. The adjustment is upward based on this reasoning gap, not market conformity.

Market comparison: Forecaster: 2.8%, Market headline: 24%, Market orderbook signal: ~6%. The orderbook signal of ~6% is closer to a reasonable estimate that incorporates Section III possibilities. The headline 24% likely reflects retail noise. The forecaster's 2.8% may be too low if Section III counts; ~6-8% is a more defensible estimate.

6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast

5% (72% confidence)