I can get a 430 hearing on any family member I want. Hell i can even testify if someone else needs one. So tell me why I can't go through the legal system to get an invasive one for Trump?

Because US officals only let law apply to poor people

Did you miss the news? The president has "absolute presumed immunity for 'official' acts".

Just like the good ol' days _/s where insane kings wage wars, massacres, and massive destruction.

Edit: But even assuming before 2025, when we still had the rule of law, it's up to the vice president + a majority of the cabinet to, via the 25th amendment, declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", and then congress has 21 days to vote, via 2/3 supermajority in both houses, to finalize it and makes the VP, permanent Acting President.

Normal impeachment is easier, only takes 1/2+1 of the house and doesn't require the VP's cooperation, this convoluted "inability" clause is even harder to invoke.

Also, the then you'd have an insane Acting President, so problem isn't really solved.

The real answer is, it's complicated. Involuntary commitment (and related acts) is a pretty extreme measure for when an individual is a danger to themselves or others. There's no evidence that he's trying to hurt himself, and the "other" usually has to be a specific person, not just a hypothetical class of others to have standing.

And it's even more complicated by the idea that the president has been gifted broad immunity regarding anything remotely tangential to official powers. So you can't even say you, specifically, are in danger due to things done by the government, so long as there is some whack job theory under which it's being executed.

If he came alone to your house naked and covered in nacho cheese with a knife threatening to hurt you, you'd probably have a case. Depending on the state, it probably takes something similar even for a family member or acquaintance (but check your local laws).

I've never heard of that one specifically and could find no sources mentioning it online. So, I'm being up front when I say I do not know the specific answer.

Having said that, sometimes if we're building out scenarios in our minds based on an inaccurate or flawed premise, that can also lead to flawed outcome in our logic. For instance, is it actually truly possible to get a 430 on any family member that you want ... like just because? And if so, is it possible there are other extenuating circumstances that you might not be considering (ex: Trump is not a family member, none of your family members are president of the United States, etc) which could explain why things might lead to a different outcome between your family member(s) and Trump?

Having said that and given the additional context you provided (i.e. Mental Examination), I'm wondering if it's a situation where the individual needs to be more of an immediate threat to the health / life of themselves or others before it's applicable? Even if you did try to make that case (because I know at least some people would), it's likely not a case where any random person can just make an accusation / report against a well-known public figure to whom they have no clear social ties and expect it to be taken seriously.

Also, this wouldn't apply to the president of the USA, but even people who legitimately do need some kind of immediate institutionalization often can't get it when they need it. It would be an understatement to say that the mental health facilities in this country are overwhelmed and underfunded.