What are the grounds for impeaching a US President under the Constitution?

1. Why the Framers’ words matter: the short list with a wide margin for judgment

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution names Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors as the constitutional grounds, a concise list whose last element is intentionally open-ended. The framers provided a narrow roster of labels but delegated interpretation to political institutions; the House holds the sole power to impeach and the Senate to try impeachments, with the chief justice presiding over presidential trials. That institutional design means legal text and political judgment are intertwined, producing historic variability in how offenses are characterized and whether they are deemed impeachable ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. What “high crimes and misdemeanors” has meant in practice: criminality versus misconduct

Scholars and institutions disagree on whether “high crimes and misdemeanors” requires a criminal statute to be violated or whether it encompasses broader misconduct, including abuse of power, dereliction of duty, or breaches of public trust. Some interpretations hew to the English impeachment tradition that includes non-indictable misconduct; others argue for a narrower criminal standard. Historical impeachments and contemporary debates show both approaches in action: some cases hinge on alleged statutory crimes, while others rest on claims of political corruption or undermining democratic functions ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

3. How procedure shapes substance: House charges and Senate conviction dynamics

The Constitution vests substantive judgment in the House and conviction power in the Senate, requiring a simple majority in the House to impeach and a two‑thirds Senate vote to convict and remove. That separation means constitutional grounds are filtered through partisan and institutional incentives: the House decides which allegations become formal articles of impeachment; the Senate decides whether those articles meet the threshold for removal. The procedural structure thus amplifies political calculation, making practical outcomes dependent on party control and institutional norms as much as on the underlying alleged misconduct ^{[1] [4]}.

4. The historical record: precedent offers guidance but not a fixed rule

Impeachment practice in the United States has developed through precedent rather than textual definition, so past impeachments shape expectations but do not rigidly define the term “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Historical cases illustrate a range of grounds—from charges centered on statutory offenses to allegations of maladministration—confirming that Congress has repeatedly exercised discretion in what it treats as impeachable. This precedent-driven evolution produces continuing debate about the permissible scope of impeachment, with institutional histories serving both as evidence of flexibility and as contested maps for future actions ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Competing arguments and possible agendas: legal clarity vs. political remedy

Commentators and institutions frame the debate with differing emphases: some stress the need for legal clarity and restraint, arguing impeachment should align with criminal wrongdoing to avoid weaponizing the remedy; others emphasize impeachment as a political safeguard against serious breaches of trust or abuse of office, even when conduct is not criminal. These positions often reflect normative or partisan agendas—legalists cite rule-of-law concerns, while political proponents underscore accountability—so assessments of alleged offenses frequently depend on the interpreter’s institutional priorities and desired outcomes ^{[7] [9]}.

6. Bottom line: a simple constitutional phrase carrying broad consequences

The Constitution explicitly lists three grounds—treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors—but leaves the key term undefined, intentionally assigning Congress both interpretive authority and consequential discretion. That ambiguity ensures impeachment remains a hybrid legal-political instrument: its application depends on textual roots, evolving precedents, and the contemporary political landscape that determines whether allegations become articles of impeachment and whether the Senate will convict ^{[1] [5]}.