Trump impeachment
Executive summary
Donald J. Trump has been impeached twice by the House—first in 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and again in 2021 for incitement of insurrection—and in both instances the Senate declined to convict him, leaving him in office after the first and not subject to removal after the second [1] [2] [3]. Since his return to office in his second term some House-level efforts to impeach have been introduced or tabled, but no sustained, bipartisan impeachment process has advanced to conviction [4] [5].
1. The two historical impeachments and what they charged
The first impeachment centered on allegations that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election in a July 2019 call with Ukraine’s president and then obstructed Congress by directing administration officials not to comply with subpoenas; the House adopted two articles—abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—on December 18, 2019 [1] [3]. The second impeachment followed the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and charged Trump with incitement of insurrection; the House impeached him and the Senate held a trial in which 57 senators voted to convict but the 67-vote two‑thirds threshold was not met, resulting in acquittal on February 13, 2021 [2] [6].
2. Why the Senate acquitted: legal standards, politics, and precedent
Senate acquittals turned on a mix of legal argument and political calculation: advocates for conviction argued impeachable offenses need not be indictable crimes, consistent with historical practice, while defenders emphasized the House managers did not allege a specific criminal statute violation and that the inquiry or proof was insufficient—arguments directly reflected in Congressional and constitutional analyses of those trials [7] [8]. The Senate’s failure to reach a two-thirds vote in 2021—despite some Republican senators publicly acknowledging Trump’s role in provoking the mob—illustrates the separation between evidentiary findings and the supermajority political threshold required for conviction [2].
3. Post-2021 attempts and the current congressional landscape
Since Trump’s return to elected office, isolated efforts to impeach have reappeared but with limited traction: Representative Al Green’s 2025 resolution was tabled by the House in December 2025 by a 237–140 vote, with a notable number of Democrats voting present or against tabling, and House Democratic leaders publicly urging a full investigative process before pursuing impeachment, signaling institutional caution and political calculation [5] [9]. Congress has also seen new resolutions filed in the 119th Congress (e.g., H.Res.353 and H.Res.537), indicating continued partisan use of impeachment as both a legislative tool and a political signal rather than a guaranteed path to removal [10] [11].
4. Competing interpretations: constitutional theory versus partisan reality
Legal scholars and institutional guides emphasize that “high crimes and misdemeanors” need not align with indictable crimes, leaving the definition partly political and partly constitutional; the Constitution’s text and annotations, and historical practice, give House managers latitude but leave ultimate judgment to senators under a demanding supermajority rule [7] [12]. Critics argue that repeated unsuccessful or symbolic impeachment attempts can backfire politically or erode institutional credibility—an explicit concern cited by Democratic leaders in 2025 when they resisted hasty measures—while proponents maintain impeachment remains the constitutional remedy for serious executive misconduct [9].
5. What reporting can and cannot tell readers now
Available public records and congressional documents confirm the two impeachments, the Senate acquittals, and recent House votes to table or file impeachment resolutions; however, analysis of motives—whether justice, political advantage, or party strategy—requires reading partisan statements and private deliberations that are not fully captured in public sources, and reporting of this nature must therefore acknowledge those evidentiary limits rather than assert private intent beyond documented statements [3] [5].