Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8]
- Committees
- Rules Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a permanent, expert commission to assess presidential capacity under the 25th Amendment, aiming to provide a structured, non-partisan mechanism for a constitutionally sensitive process.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a 17-member Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, designated as the body Congress would use to implement Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. If directed by a concurrent resolution of Congress, the Commission would conduct a medical examination of the President to determine if they are unable to perform their duties due to physical or mental illness, substance use, or any other incapacitating condition. The Commission's report, including any disagreement from the Vice President, would be transmitted to Congress, overriding HIPAA privacy regulations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill provides a crucial, non-partisan, and expert-driven mechanism for addressing potential presidential incapacity, ensuring national security and continuity of government. They contend that establishing such a body in advance, with clear procedures and medical expertise, removes the process from immediate political pressures and ensures a more objective assessment should the need arise, thereby strengthening the constitutional framework.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could be weaponized for political purposes, potentially enabling a partisan Congress to initiate an examination of a President they oppose, thereby undermining the presidency and creating instability. Concerns could also be raised about the privacy implications for the President and the potential for the Commission's findings to be influenced by political considerations despite its intended design, leading to a politicization of medical assessments.
The bill is concise and straightforward, allowing for a quick and informed read, making it accessible to anyone wishing to understand its provisions.
Section 2
Establishment of the Commission on Presidential Capacity
This section formally creates a new body within the legislative branch called the 'Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office.' Crucially, it explicitly states that this Commission will serve as the body provided by law by Congress to carry out Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which addresses presidential disability and succession.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing this commission proactively provides a clear, constitutional pathway for addressing presidential incapacity, removing ambiguity and ensuring a structured response to potential crises, thereby enhancing national stability.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that creating such a commission, even if intended to be non-partisan, opens the door to potential political weaponization of the 25th Amendment, creating a standing body that could be pressured to act against a President.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for a clear process for presidential incapacity against concerns about potential political interference or undermining the office of the President.
Section 3
Scope of Commission's Determination
This section outlines the Commission's primary duty: to conduct a medical examination of the President if directed by Congress. The purpose of this examination is to determine if the President is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. It specifies conditions such as physical illness, mental illness, alcohol or drug use, or any other condition rendering the President unable to execute their duties.
Section 4
Composition and Appointment of Commissioners
This section details the 17-member composition of the Commission. It includes 8 members appointed by congressional leadership (2 from each party in both chambers), 8 former high-ranking executive branch officers (4 Democratic-affiliated, 4 Republican-affiliated, with specific past roles like President, VP, SecState, AG, etc.), and a Chair appointed by a simple majority of the other 16 members. It mandates that most congressional appointees be physicians, with one from each pair specializing in psychiatry. The Chair must also be a physician or meet the former executive officer criteria. Members cannot be elected officials, federal employees, or active military.
Section 5
Congressional Directive and Examination Timeline
This section outlines the process for initiating an examination. It requires a concurrent resolution from Congress to direct the Commission to conduct an examination. It then applies special, expedited legislative procedures (borrowed from the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990) for the consideration of this concurrent resolution, including a 48-hour period for committee consideration and expedited floor votes. Once the concurrent resolution is adopted, the Commission must conduct the examination within 72 hours.
Section 6
Commission Report and Vice President's Disagreement
Within 72 hours of completing the examination, the Commission must transmit a report to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This report must include the declaration required by Section 4 of the 25th Amendment regarding the President's ability to discharge duties, along with findings and conclusions. Notably, it explicitly overrides HIPAA privacy regulations for this report. If the Vice President disagrees with the Commission's declaration, their statement of disagreement and its basis must be included in the report. The President's refusal to undergo examination can be considered by the Commission.
This section incorporates by reference the expedited legislative procedures from Section 2908 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 for considering the concurrent resolution directing the Commission's examination. It then modifies specific timelines within those procedures, changing a '20-day period' to a '48-hour period' and 'the third day' to 'the first day' for certain actions.
Section 5(b) and 5(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory text. However, the specific modifications to the timelines are critical and could be easily overlooked by a casual reader unfamiliar with the referenced act, potentially obscuring the rapid nature of the process.
Case for: Proponents would argue that using established expedited procedures ensures a rapid and efficient congressional response to a potential presidential incapacity, which is a matter of national urgency, thereby preventing prolonged uncertainty.
Case against: Opponents might argue that incorporating such complex procedures by reference, with critical modifications, obscures the true speed and potential lack of deliberation involved, making it harder for the public and even some legislators to fully grasp the process and its implications.
Estimated impact: Significantly accelerates the congressional process for initiating a presidential capacity examination, potentially reducing the time for public debate and legislative scrutiny.
The bill explicitly states that the Commission's report to Congress, which includes the declaration on the President's capacity, shall be transmitted 'notwithstanding the HIPAA privacy regulations (as defined in section 1180(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-9(b)(3))).'
Section 6(a)
Why it matters:This is likely included to preempt any legal challenges regarding the disclosure of the President's medical information, ensuring the Commission's report can be fully transparent to Congress. It's a necessary legal clarification but could be seen as a significant carve-out from standard privacy protections.
Case for: Proponents would argue that the national security implications of presidential incapacity necessitate full transparency to Congress and the public, overriding standard privacy protections in this unique circumstance to ensure informed decision-making.
Case against: Critics might argue that this sets a dangerous precedent for the privacy of a President's medical records, potentially opening the door to politically motivated disclosures and undermining trust between a President and their medical team.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the Commission's medical findings regarding the President's capacity are fully disclosable to Congress, regardless of standard medical privacy laws.