What specific allegations do H.Res.537 and H.Res.353 list as grounds for impeachment?

1. H.Res.537 — Accusations of unilateral force, authoritarianism, and attacks on judicial independence

H.Res.537 charges that President Trump engaged in an “unilateral, unprovoked use of force without congressional authorization or notice,” which the text characterizes as an abuse of power taken when there was no imminent threat to the United States; the resolution ties that conduct to facilitating a slide toward authoritarianism and specifically alleges that the President “instigated an attack on the United States Capitol,” denied due process to persons, and called for impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him (text and preprint excerpts) ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. H.Res.353 — Seven articles alleging a pattern of constitutional violations

H.Res.353 sets out seven distinct articles of impeachment: obstruction of justice, violation of due process, and breach of the duty to faithfully execute the laws; usurpation of Congress’s appropriations power; abuse of trade powers and international aggression; violation of First Amendment rights; creation of an unlawful government office; bribery and corruption; and tyrannical conduct — the resolution’s sponsors argue these alleged actions together demonstrate unfitness to govern and a continuing threat to the Constitution (bill summaries and bill text listings) ^{[3] [4] [6] [7]}.

3. Overlap, differences, and emphasis between the two resolutions

While both resolutions allege “high crimes and misdemeanors,” H.Res.537 concentrates on an alleged use-of-force incident and related threats to democratic norms and judicial independence, making a relatively narrow but grave set of allegations grounded in executive use of force and authoritarian behavior ^{[1] [2]}, whereas H.Res.353 is broader and more granular, advancing seven articles that cover statutory and constitutional duties across domestic and foreign policy, corruption, and civil liberties ^{[3] [4]}.

4. How the resolutions present evidence and claims — and where reporting is limited

The official texts and summaries on Congress.gov, GovTrack, and related legislative trackers present the allegations and enumerate articles but do not, in the snippets provided, contain full evidentiary appendices or judicial findings within the bill text itself; primary sources list the charges and rationale but detailed evidentiary assertions and supporting exhibits would be found in accompanying committee materials or floor statements not included in the cited summaries (Congress.gov bill text and GovTrack listings; BillTrack50 and TrackBill summaries) ^{[1] [2] [5] [3] [4]}.

5. Political framing, sponsors, and potential agendas

The language of both resolutions — H.Res.537’s emphasis on authoritarianism and an “attack on the United States Capitol,” and H.Res.353’s cataloguing of seven constitutional breaches including “bribery and corruption” and “tyranny” — signals strong normative judgments by their sponsors; public-facing explanations (for example, a vote explainer from a sponsoring member) position these as responses to threats to democratic institutions, and observers should note that such resolutions are both legal instruments and political messages designed to mobilize House debate and public opinion (bill texts and a congressional vote explainer) ^{[1] [2] [8]}.

6. Implications and next steps left to congressional process

The resolutions formally present articles for exhibition to the Senate if adopted by the House, but the texts and summaries cited here document allegations and articles rather than adjudicating guilt; whether these grounds lead to formal impeachment proceedings, committee investigations, or trial depends on House floor action, committee referrals, and the broader political calculus — details about subsequent votes or evidentiary hearings are not contained in the provided sources (Congress.gov, GovTrack, and legislative summaries) ^{[1] [9] [5]}.