What is the process and timeline after the House impeaches a president and what vote thresholds are required in the Senate to convict and remove Donald Trump?
Executive summary
The House impeaches by approving articles of impeachment by a simple majority; once impeached the case moves to the Senate for trial, where conviction (and automatic removal) requires a two‑thirds vote of Senators present — usually 67 of 100 if all are present (House simple majority; Senate two‑thirds) [1] [2]. The timeline after a House vote is flexible: the House transmits the articles, the Senate sets trial procedures (including whether to hear witnesses), and the Senate trial schedule has historically ranged from weeks to months depending on political choices (available sources do not give a fixed timetable) [3] [2].
1. How impeachment in the House actually works — simple majority to charge
The Constitution vests the House with “the sole Power of Impeachment”; in practice the House approves one or more articles of impeachment by a simple majority vote — that vote is the formal act of impeachment and the House then “exhibits” (transmits) the articles to the Senate [1] [4]. Members or committees can investigate and draft articles first; some members pursue privileged motions to force floor action quickly, a tactic used in recent 2025 filings [5] [6].
2. What happens after the House impeaches — case moves to the Senate for trial
After the House impeaches, the matter moves to the Senate, which “sits as a High Court of Impeachment” to try the case; House managers act as prosecutors before the Senate and, in a presidential trial, the Chief Justice presides [7] [1]. The Senate controls its own procedures: it can vote on rules that govern timing, evidence, witness testimony and quorum. Those procedural votes are major determinants of how long a trial lasts [2].
3. Timeline realities — no fixed clock, highly political
There is no constitutionally fixed deadline for how quickly the Senate must start or finish a trial after receipt of articles; the Senate sets procedures by majority vote and has in different cases spent days, weeks or months in evidentiary work and deliberations [3] [2]. Historical examples show wide variance: some impeachment processes unfolded over many months, others were quicker; recent reporting and House practice note that privileged motions and political pressure can speed or slow floor action, but available sources do not provide a single statutory timetable [3] [5].
4. The conviction threshold — two‑thirds of Senators present (usually 67)
Conviction requires the “Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present” in the Senate; with 100 senators present that means 67 votes to convict on at least one article. If fewer senators are present, the two‑thirds formula applies to those present and voting, which can lower the raw number required [8] [2]. After conviction removal is automatic; the Senate may then take a separate simple‑majority vote to disqualify the person from future federal office [9] [10].
5. Political arithmetic — why two‑thirds matters in practice
The two‑thirds requirement is designed as a high bar to ensure bipartisan consensus for removal; analysts note that the threshold, combined with Senate composition and party loyalties, makes conviction of a president politically difficult unless many members cross party lines [11] [12]. Past Trump trials illustrate that only a small number of senators from the president’s party crossed over; to convict a president would typically require dozens of defections from his party [11] [13].
6. Open questions and contested points in reporting
Major questions remain in the reporting: whether the Senate can or will hold a trial while a president is still in office or after he leaves, how many senators will be present when the final vote occurs, and exactly how fast the Senate will act — these are procedural and political decisions the Senate makes case by case [14] [2]. Some sources note legal and strategic debates — for example disputes over jurisdiction for former officials — but available sources do not resolve how those disputes would change the two‑thirds rule [14] [2].
7. Competing perspectives and institutional incentives
Supporters of swift House impeachment argue the process is Congress’s constitutional tool for accountability and can be accelerated via privileged motions [5] [6]. Senate leaders emphasize its role as a deliberative court and control trial rules; legal analysts and the Brennan Center warn the two‑thirds rule combined with Senate structure can allow a partisan minority to prevent conviction [1] [11]. Each chamber’s incentives — House members seeking accountability or political signaling, Senate leaders guarding stability and chamber prerogatives — shape timing and outcomes [3] [2].
Limitations: this account relies solely on the provided documents; specific scheduling choices, how many senators will vote or be present, and any later procedural rulings are not detailed in these sources and therefore are not reported here (available sources do not mention exact future vote counts or firm trial dates) [2] [5].