United States, explained.
US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Marine One as he departs from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington DC, 16 April 2026 (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
Talk of the 25th Amendment may be political theatre, but the signals it sends are quietly reshaping how the world reads American stability.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
When power hesitates, the world recalibratesWhen power hesitates, the world recalibrates
In Washington, even a whisper can travel far. When that whisper concerns the possibility – however remote – of invoking the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution to remove the president from office – it does not stay confined within the corridors of domestic politics. It moves outward, crossing borders, entering markets, and settling into the calculations of governments that have long learned to read not just American decisions, but the conditions behind them.
The current wave of commentary around the amendment is, in practical terms, unlikely to lead anywhere. The constitutional threshold is deliberately high. It requires alignment not from political opponents, but from those closest to executive authority. Without that, the mechanism remains dormant. This is not a tool for moments of disagreement, nor for correcting political discomfort. It exists for something far narrower, and far more serious.
What appears as domestic political noise can carry external weight.
And yet, the persistence of the conversation is itself revealing.
It reflects a political environment where the boundary between institutional process and public narrative has grown increasingly porous. What might once have remained a quiet constitutional safeguard is now part of open, and often amplified, debate. In such an environment, the significance of an idea is no longer measured only by its likelihood of being realised, but by the fact that it can be credibly discussed at all.
For much of the post-Cold War era, the United States occupied a position that extended beyond its material capabilities. It functioned, implicitly, as a reference point for continuity. Even when policies shifted, there remained a broadly shared expectation that the underlying system would hold – that decisions would be anchored in processes that, while contested, were ultimately stable.
That expectation has not disappeared. But it has become less automatic.
The question, then, is not whether the 25th Amendment will be invoked. It is what the repeated invocation of its possibility says about the environment in which it is being discussed. Political systems do not need to break in order to send signals. Sometimes, it is enough that they appear, even momentarily, uncertain.
In a world defined by interdependence, such signals travel quickly.
A stylised display of the US Constitution (Larry Alger/Unsplash)
Markets respond not only to policy, but to the perceived durability of policy. Diplomacy is shaped not only by formal positions, but by judgements about how long those positions will hold. Strategic planning increasingly involves not just assessing capability, but gauging consistency.
In this sense, what appears as domestic political noise can carry external weight. It invites others – states, investors, institutions – to reassess their assumptions, however slightly, about the steadiness of a system that has long been treated as a given.
This does not imply an imminent rupture. The structures of American governance remain intact, and their resilience has been tested before. But resilience, in today’s environment, is no longer judged solely by outcomes. It is also judged by the degree of confidence those outcomes inspire along the way.
And confidence, once questioned, tends to recalibrate gradually rather than collapse suddenly.
The broader implication is not one of immediate instability, but of subtle adjustment. The global system is becoming less anchored in a single, unquestioned centre of gravity. It is evolving into something more distributed, where influence is exercised alongside uncertainty, and where even established powers are observed with a more conditional lens.
In such a setting, steadiness acquires a different kind of value.
Not as a claim, but as a practice. Not as a projection of strength alone, but as the ability to maintain continuity under pressure. This is harder to measure, and often less visible. But it shapes expectations in ways that material power alone cannot.
What we are witnessing, then, is not a constitutional moment, but a perceptual one.
A moment in which the discussion of an unlikely scenario begins to influence how reality itself is interpreted. A moment in which the gap between what is probable and what is conceivable becomes, in strategic terms, increasingly relevant.
The world does not wait for clarity before it adjusts. It moves, quietly, in response to signals – some strong, others faint, but rarely ignored.
And when power hesitates, even briefly, that movement tends to accelerate.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author in his personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Government of Indonesia or any affiliated institution.
About the author
Febrian Alphyanto Ruddyard
His Excellency Mr. Febrian Alphyanto Ruddyard was appointed by the President of the Republic of Indonesia as the Vice Minister of the National Development Planning/Vice Head of National Development Planning Agency on 20 October 2024.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
