Thoughts on Incapacitated Leaders

Originally Published 1/23/2026

A few months ago, I wrote about the list of charges brought against the British monarch, George III, in 1776, as the central portion of the Declaration of Independence. I quoted my colleague Rabbi Gordon Tucker who had drawn some obvious comparisons between that list of grievances to policies that are being pursued by the current administration in this country. Reflecting on George III, I recalled that at a certain point his behavior manifested episodes of mania and pressured speech. He talked for hours without stopping, often until he became hoarse or foaming at the mouth. He had hallucinations and delusions. In one case, he imagined that he could shake hands with the King of Prussia who he thought was an oak tree. He buried a steak in the ground believing that it would grow into a beef tree. Numerous other inappropriate and strange behaviors were noted by courtiers including acts of violence and agitation as well as impaired judgment. These episodes were terrifying for the royal household and politically destabilizing for the government. 

George III’s final and irreversible breakdown began in late 1810 after the death of his daughter Princess Amelia. By early 1811, it was clear he could no longer perform royal duties. At this point, Parliament stepped in, issuing the Regency Act of 1811. They declared George III incapacitated and appointed the Prince of Wales, the future King George IV, as Prince Regent. Initially they imposed restrictions on the Regent’s powers which expired after one year. This was not automatic for Britain had no standing constitutional mechanism for a monarch’s incapacity. The legislation leading to the Regency Act was a political compromise crafted by Parliament.

                 George III remained King of Great Britain and Ireland from 1811 until 1820 under the Regency. His name continued to appear on laws and coinage and official documents. But he exercised no governing authority whatsoever. All royal powers, appointments, foreign policy, military command, assent to legislation were vested in the Prince Regent. George lived in complete seclusion, blind, nearly deaf, and in a state of mental confusion unaware of major events in Europe or even of the death of his wife.

                 In our country, in October 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a major stroke leaving him paralyzed on his left side with severe physical weakness, cognitive impairment, emotional instability, essentially unable to perform the duties of the presidency for the remainder of his term. His condition was concealed from the public, Congress, and even parts of his cabinet, creating one of the most serious constitutional crises in U.S. history. In effect, his wife Edith, was managing the presidency on his behalf.

                 It was this unprecedented situation that led ultimately over some time to the creation of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified by the states in 1967. This Amendment creates a clear, legal pathway to deal with situations in which the president becomes incapacitated. In such a case, either he voluntarily transfers power or the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet declare the president unable to serve. This is the closest modern analogue to the Regency Act of 1811.

                 In the case of George III, his incapacity was medical, severe, and well-documented. It was long-term and ultimately permanent. It was undisputed by the end, no one believed he could govern. Things are not so clearcut under the 25th Amendment. While some observers may perceive erratic, confused, or unpredictable behavior, often there is political disagreement about whether the behavior constitutes “inability.” In the absence of clear medical consensus, it is difficult to imagine the Amendment working in most cases when the president’s condition is disputed. Even if the Vice President and most of the cabinet agree, Congress becomes the final arbiter if the president contests the decision.

                 Were it to be invoked, the President remains President in title. The Vice President becomes Acting President and the President could potentially recover and resume power at some later date. In the Britist Regency Law, the King has no say in the matter and the incapacity is assumed to be permanent.

                 There does not appear to be anything like a 25th Amendment or a Regency Law in Jewish tradition. However, there are some cases that are somewhat similar in our biblical texts and later in our history where a leader becomes incapacitated. In Second Chronicles, chapter 26, we read about King Uzziah. You may recall that he was the King of Judah, the southern kingdom, when Isaiah began his prophetic career and his death is mentioned in the famous passage in chapter 6 of Isaiah when the prophet has the vision of God on His high and exalted throne with angels singing “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts.”

                 In Chronicles we read of a strange incident in the Temple “As he became strong, his heart became haughty to the point of destructiveness, and he (Uzziah) betrayed the Lord his God. He entered the sanctuary of the Lord to burn incense on the incense altar. Azariah, the Kohen, went after him, along with 80 strong kohanim of the Lord. They stood next to King Uzziah and said to him, ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but it is for the kohanim, the descendants of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Leave the temple, for you have been treacherous and this will not bring you honor from the Lord God.’ Uzziah became enraged, and he already had a censer in his hand for burning incense. As he was becoming enraged with the kohanim, a leprous growth appeared on his forehead in the presence of the kohanim in the Temple of the Lord, near the incense altar. Azariah, the chief kohen, and all the other kohanim turned to him, and behold, he was leprous on his forehead. So they rushed him away from there; he too hastened to leave for the Lord had afflicted him. King Uzziah was a leper until the day of his death. He dwelt in his leprosy in a plce of asylum, for he was banished from the Temple of the Lord. His son Jothan took charge of the royal house and judged the people of the land.”                             

Uzziah becomes a metzora, a leper, and must live in isolation. His son Jotham governs while Uzziah remains king. The rabbis do not call this a “regency,” but it is the closest biblical precedent for a sidelined monarch whose heir governs in his stead. The only other case I can think of is during King David’s last days when his son Adonijah proclaims himself king as David lies dying. David is informed of this insurrection that goes against his plans for Solomon to succeed him. Nathan the prophet and Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, come to David’s bedside and the king rouses himself and sets Solomon on the throne in his stead.

There are other offices, however, where the leader can be replaced and a substitute put in his stead. In the Avodah ritual on Yom Kippur we read of the kohen who is designated to step in should the High Priest become ritually impure or physically unfit,the substitute can step in. In the case of a judge who becomes blind or deaf or unable to reason, he is disqualified and another is chosen in his stead. This is replacement, not regency. In general, if the leader is permanently incapacitated, he is removed and replaced. If it is only a temporary disability, he is set aside and deputies step in to fulfill his duties. This is true also of rashei yeshivah, rabbis and others. When they can no longer function in their role, then someone else should be chosen in their stead. This needs to be done with respect and care for the dignity of the incapacitated leader. The law of showing respect for elders and sages extends even to those who have lost their mental capacity and no longer have the knowledge they demonstrated when they were younger. We recite this verse as part of the Sh’ma Koleinu prayer during Selichot and on Yom Kippur, “Al tashlicheinu l’eit ziknah, kichlot kocheinu al taazveinu, Do not cast us off when we grow old, when our strength wanes, do not desert us.”

No ruler, no leader, no matter how talented, is irreplaceable. When his abilities decline and he can no longer fulfill his role, it is time for appropriate action to be taken and for someone to step in temporarily or permanently. With a physical disability, the damage is usually apparent. It is only when we are dealing with cognitive impairment that is less obvious, do we enter into controversy and political considerations tend to crowd out concern for the welfare of the people.

Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Edward Friedman