Yes.----The good news is that Garland and Buttgag are farther down the list and perhaps more importantly, Granholm and Mayorkas do not qualify.
I think the succession is the same whether death or incapacitation. If there is a Speaker, they are 2nd in line.
You better re-read that. The way I read it, hypothetically if both Joe and Kamala had to undergo surgery simultaneously and both were gonna be put out for 8 hours (ie incapacitated), the Secretary of State would be acting President.... not the Speaker. Blinken would hold the nuke codes. If both croaked, yes the Speaker gets it. Or in absence of a Speaker as we have right now, ProTem Patty. Think about it B1, why would they even delineate the Cabinet hierarchy for acting President if that were not the case? There's a huge difference between incapacitation and death. When Treefrog wakes up, he'll reaffirm this I'm sure. That said, when my curiosity is piqued and I delve into something, I'm usually right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession The order of succession specifies that the office passes to the vice president; if the vice presidency is simultaneously vacant, or if the vice president is also incapacitated, the powers and duties of the presidency pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives, president pro tempore of the Senate, and then Cabinet secretaries, depending on eligibility.
The Presidential Succession Act refers specifically to officers beyond the vice president acting as president rather than becoming president when filling a vacancy. The Cabinet has 15 members, of which the secretary of state is first in line;
The current act is also controversial because it provides that an officer who is acting as president due to the disability or failure to qualify of an officer higher in the order of succession does so only until the other officer's disability or disqualification is removed. If this happens, the previously entitled officer can "bump" the person then acting as president.[28] During testimony in 2004 before the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Akhil Reed Amar stated that this provision violates "the Succession Clause, which says that an officer named by Congress shall 'act as President ... until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected'".[44] In its 2009 report, the Continuity of Government Commission argued that as well as going against the language of the Constitution, bumping violates the doctrine of separation of powers by undermining the independence of the executive from the Congress: The Constitution on its face seems to stipulate that once a person is deemed to be acting president by the Presidential Succession Act, he or she cannot be replaced by a different person. This interpretation makes some logical sense as the provision would presumably prevent the confusion that would arise if the presidency were transferred to several different individuals in a short period of time. It would also seemingly prevent Congress from exercising influence on the executive branch by threatening to replace a cabinet member acting as president with a newly elected Speaker of the House.[29] On a practical level, it is argued that this provision could result in there being multiple acting presidents in a short period of time during a national crisis and weaken the public legitimacy of successors.[30][44] In a January 2011 Roll Call op-ed, Representative Brad Sherman wrote, [The bumping provision] creates a game of musical chairs with the presidency and would cause great instability. In a time of national crisis, the nation needs to know who its president is.[45]