Can the Senate remove a President without a two-thirds majority vote?

1. Constitutional command and Senate procedure: removal needs two‑thirds

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, as explained by the Senate and legal guides, requires the concurrence of two‑thirds of Senators present to convict in an impeachment trial; conviction is the act that removes an official from office ^{[1] [4] [5]}. The authoritative Senate explainer and Reuters both state plainly that a two‑thirds majority of the 100‑member Senate (67 votes if all are present) is required to convict and thereby remove a President ^{[1] [5]}. Congressional research and historical accounts echo that only a two‑thirds vote effects removal ^{[2] [6]}.

2. Removal vs. disqualification: two separate remedies, different thresholds

The Senate has long treated removal (the immediate consequence of conviction) and disqualification from holding future federal office as separate judgments. Removal requires the two‑thirds conviction vote; the follow‑on question—whether to disqualify the person from future office—has been determined by Senate practice to require only a simple majority ^{[2] [3]}. Justia’s annotated Constitution and CRS materials document that the Senate historically voted by simple majority to impose disqualification in several trials ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Practical consequence: why two‑thirds matters politically

Because two‑thirds of those present are needed to remove, a President with even modest party unity can be insulated from conviction unless defections are significant; that is why past presidential impeachment trials ended in acquittal despite majorities for conviction in some cases (e.g., the second Trump trial saw a majority but fewer than two‑thirds) ^{[4] [6]}. News explainers underline that a 67‑vote threshold in a 100‑seat Senate is a deliberately high bar established by the Constitution to limit removal to serious consensus ^{[5] [1]}.

4. Trying former officials: jurisdictional vote is majority, not removal

The Senate has, at times, voted by simple majority that it has jurisdiction to try a former president or other former official; such jurisdictional decisions are distinct from the later conviction vote and do not themselves remove anyone ^{[6] [7]}. For example, the Senate voted 56–44 in 2021 that it had jurisdiction to try a former president—showing the Senate can decide procedural questions by simple majority even while maintaining the two‑thirds threshold for conviction ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Where reporting and practice sometimes get conflated

Some popular explainers emphasize that removal “requires 67 votes” and that disqualification may be a separate, simpler vote; other pieces treat “removal and disqualification” together, creating confusion for readers. Official sources (Senate, CRS, Justia) make the legal distinction explicit: the Constitution mandates two‑thirds to convict and remove; the Senate’s interpretation has permitted a simple majority for disqualification ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Limitations and points the sources do not settle

Available sources do not mention any constitutional text explicitly ordering that disqualification must be by simple majority; rather, they report that the Senate has interpreted the practice that way based on precedent ^{[3] [2]}. Sources provided do not explore every counter‑argument for requiring two‑thirds for disqualification nor full judicial review possibilities; they record the Senate’s practice and historical votes ^{[3] [2]}.

Conclusion — the clear legal rule from primary congressional and legal summaries is that the Senate cannot remove a President without a two‑thirds majority vote to convict; removal follows conviction automatically, while a separate, later vote to bar future officeholding can be taken by a simple majority under Senate precedent ^{[1] [2] [3]}.