Fact check: What are the grounds for impeachment under the US Constitution?

1. Constitutional Text vs. Political Practice: Why the Phrase Keeps a Foot in Both Worlds

The plain constitutional text names treason, bribery, and "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as the grounds for impeachment, and sets a two-step removal path: impeachment in the House and conviction by a two-thirds Senate vote for removal ^[1]. This framework creates a hybrid legal-political instrument: the words are legal terms embedded in a political process, meaning impeachment can produce removal without criminal conviction, distinguishing it from ordinary criminal procedures. Contemporary scholarship from October 2025 reiterates this dual nature, noting framers did not limit impeachment to conduct that would satisfy criminal statutes ^[2].

2. Scholarly Interpretation: What "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" Really Means Today

Constitutional scholars interpret "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a term of art that includes serious abuses of power and betrayal of public trust, not solely indictable crimes; the emphasis is on the official's fitness to remain in office ^[2]. This interpretation, reflected in analyses from late 2025, frames impeachment as a remedy for gross or malignant abuses of power—for example, misuse of office to subvert constitutional duties—rather than a duplicate criminal process. The scholarly consensus cited here stresses the framers' intent to allow Congress latitude to address political misconduct without strict reliance on criminal law ^[2].

3. Treason and Bribery: Narrow Words with Broad Consequences

Treason and bribery are listed specifically and carry clearer doctrinal contours: treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution and statute, while bribery implicates corrupt exchange tied to official acts. These enumerated grounds operate alongside the broader "high crimes" clause, offering some textual anchors where Congress may point to statutory or common-law analogues when arguing impeachment. The presence of these specific offenses in the text provides a legal baseline even as legislators and commentators debate whether particular misconduct meets the higher, political threshold required for removal ^{[1] [2]}.

4. The Fourteenth Amendment's Insurrection Bar: A Parallel Route to Disqualification

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment bars individuals who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office and has been argued to function as a self-executing, immediate disqualification—potentially enforceable without a separate impeachment ^[3]. Recent analyses from September 2025 treat this clause as an additional constitutional mechanism distinct from Article II impeachment, covering conduct that undermines the constitutional order. Legal commentators note enforcement questions remain—who adjudicates disqualification and what procedures apply—so practical application depends on institutional and judicial decisions ^[3].

5. Process and Burden: Political Votes, Not Legal Guilt

The impeachment process requires political majorities: a simple House majority to impeach and a two-thirds Senate majority to convict and remove ^[1]. This structure makes impeachment a fundamentally political remedy, where outcomes often reflect partisan and institutional judgments about fitness, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Scholars emphasize that because impeachment is separate from criminal trials, removal can occur even when criminal prosecution is not pursued or has failed; conversely, criminal conviction does not automatically trigger removal absent congressional action ^{[2] [1]}.

6. Disputes and Unresolved Corners: What Remains Contested

Key contested issues include the scope of "high crimes"—whether it covers purely political missteps, negligence, or only intentional abuses—and the extent to which Section Three's disqualification is self-executing in modern practice ^{[2] [3]}. Recent commentary in late 2025 reveals ongoing debate over whether indirect support for anti-constitutional efforts falls within Section Three's reach and whether Congress, courts, or administrative officials should ultimately adjudicate disqualification. These unresolved questions mean constitutional text, institutional choice, and political judgment interact in ways that will continue to produce litigation and legislative contestation ^[3].

7. What This Means for Future Cases: Politics Will Still Drive Outcomes

Given the textual framework and scholarly readings, future impeachment decisions will hinge on political majorities translating constitutional standards into practical judgments, with courts reluctant to define the full scope of "high crimes" and Section Three enforcement left partly open. The documents reviewed from September through December 2025 indicate that while the Constitution supplies categories and tools—treason, bribery, high crimes, and an insurrection bar—their application depends on contemporary political will and institutional interpretation, making impeachment as much a measure of political accountability as a legal sanction ^{[2] [1] [3]}.