Which senators have publicly stated they would vote to convict a president in 2025–2026, and what are their stated reasons?
Executive summary
No contemporary, on-the-record list of senators who have publicly declared they will vote to convict a president in 2025–2026 appears in the reporting supplied; the available sources instead offer background on past votes, political pressures, and institutional context that shape any future convictions (including an active House impeachment resolution) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting that is cited often speculates about which senators "could" or "might" cross party lines rather than catalog firm public commitments [2] [4].
1. What the record in these sources actually shows about public commitments
The supplied materials do not contain contemporary, explicit public statements from sitting senators in 2025–2026 saying they will vote to convict a president at a Senate impeachment trial; instead, sources document structural context — an impeachment resolution in the House (H.Res.537) exists in the 119th Congress [1] and political commentary and analysis discuss who might be willing to break with party leaders based on prior behavior [2] [4]. This means there is no verified list in the provided reporting of senators who have unequivocally announced a 2025–2026 conviction vote.
2. Who appears in the background as potential cross-over votes and why
Analysts and older reporting identify a pool of senators who have in past crises deviated from the party line or are viewed as less electorally vulnerable through 2026; Brookings’ 2021 analysis, for example, highlighted a cohort of Republicans not up for reelection until 2026 — including then-leaders like Mitch McConnell — as politically situated to consider votes counter to Trump if they chose to do so, though Brookings framed that as analysis, not contemporaneous declarations [2]. Newsweek and similar outlets have historically listed Republicans who "could" vote to remove a president, underscoring that such lists are predictive and contingent rather than records of public pledges [4].
3. Past convictions and electoral consequences noted in reporting
The documents supplied record consequences from past behavior that inform current calculations: Roll Call recounts that Sen. Bill Cassidy faced a primary challenger after his 2021 vote to convict Trump, illustrating the electoral risks senators weigh when considering a conviction vote [5]. That episode remains the clearest, documented example in these sources of a senator voting to convict and suffering a political backlash, which analysts use to explain reticence among other senators today [5].
4. Institutional and political context that constrains public commitments
Republican control of the Senate and changes to Senate procedures in 2025 reshape the incentives around impeachment politics; NBC reported that Republicans used the "nuclear option" and consolidated confirmation power, signaling a consolidated majority and a political environment that reduces the immediate likelihood of many Republicans publicly committing to a conviction vote [3]. Commentators in the House — including Rep. Sean Casten — have said there is not the political or public will to convict in recent episodes, a view that reflects political realities captured by the supplied reporting [6].
5. What the supplied reporting cannot tell readers
The sources provided do not include up-to-date floor remarks, press statements, or roll-call intentions from individual senators in 2025–2026 expressing a promise to convict; the Congressional Record and Senate floor proceedings are cited as repositories for such statements but no specific contemporary entries were supplied here [7]. Therefore, any definitive naming of senators who "have publicly stated they would vote to convict" would require checking primary statements, floor speeches, or individual press releases not included in this dossier.
6. How to interpret the reporting and hidden agendas
Analysts and outlets often frame potential conviction votes as either principled breaks or strategic positioning; Brookings and similar analyses implicitly treat senators’ motives as a mix of institutionalist concern (rule of law, constitutional duty) and self-preservation (electoral timing, primary threats) — an interplay that produces speculation rather than certainties [2] [5]. Readers should note that lists of "could-vote-to-convict" senators often reflect the outlet’s political reading and may be used to either encourage defections or to pressure party discipline depending on the source [2] [4].