By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — February 26, 2026

A common assumption outside the United States is that if opposition parties gain control of both chambers of Congress, impeachment of the president will automatically follow. That assumption misunderstands how restraint often works in the U.S. system.

A change in the composition of Congress does not require escalation. In many cases, it produces containment.

When the House and Senate shift to opposition control, the immediate effect is not removal but constraint. Budgets tighten. Oversight intensifies. Appointments slow or stop. Executive initiatives face delays, revisions, or quiet abandonment. For many elected officials, this outcome may be sufficient. If congressional pressure pulls a president back from more radical or destabilizing actions, impeachment may be viewed as unnecessary, divisive, or strategically unwise.

In other words, restraint can be achieved without removal.

This is an important point for foreign readers. Impeachment is not the default response to controversy. It is one tool among many, and often not the first or preferred one. Members of Congress must weigh political stability, institutional risk, and national impact. They may conclude that limiting a president’s room to maneuver is more effective than attempting to remove him.

However, for the sake of completeness, there is another constitutional mechanism that is often mentioned alongside impeachment and is frequently misunderstood: the 25th Amendment.

The 25th Amendment addresses presidential incapacity, not misconduct. It was written to ensure continuity of government if a president becomes unable to perform the duties of the office due to physical or cognitive inability. It was not designed to correct political behavior or resolve partisan conflict.

The most discussed provision is Section 4. Under this section, the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet may declare that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. If they do so, authority transfers immediately to the Vice President as Acting President.

This transfer is temporary by default.

The president may contest the declaration. If that happens, Congress must decide whether the president remains sidelined. To sustain the transfer of power, two-thirds of both the House and the Senate must agree. If Congress fails to meet that threshold, power returns to the president.

This makes Section 4 fast to invoke but extremely difficult to sustain.

The political consequences are also severe. Invoking the 25th Amendment requires the Vice President to act against the president and Cabinet members to risk their positions and careers. If the effort fails, retaliation is likely. If it succeeds temporarily, the country enters a constitutional crisis with global implications.

For these reasons, Section 4 has never been used to permanently remove a president. It is widely regarded as a last-resort mechanism for clear incapacity, not a substitute for impeachment or elections.

For governments in the European Union and for countries in Asia, including the Philippines, the practical takeaway is this: even with an opposition Congress, the most likely outcome is constraint, not removal. The system favors stability and continuity, even under strain.

The 25th Amendment exists as a safeguard, not a corrective. Its presence does not mean it will be used, and its use would create a crisis larger than the problem it is meant to solve.

In the American system, restraint often happens quietly. Removal, when it happens at all, is rare by design.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Reference

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV.
Congressional Research Service. (2024). Presidential succession and inability.
National Archives. (n.d.). The Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.