Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Have there been any instances in US history where a president was removed without impeachment?
Executive Summary
There is one clear, established instance of a U.S. president leaving office without being impeached: Richard Nixon’s resignation in August 1974 amid the Watergate scandal, which ended his presidency before the House completed impeachment proceedings [1] [2]. Other constitutional mechanisms exist to remove or disqualify a president—notably the 25th Amendment and provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment—but the sources provided indicate these routes are legally complex and have not produced a precedent of forcible removal without impeachment [3] [4].
1. How Nixon’s resignation became the only modern non-impeachment exit that felt like removal
Richard Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974, citing the national interest after losing political support; his departure came as impeachment articles were imminent, making resignation effectively a way to avoid a Senate trial and formal removal by conviction [1] [2]. Nixon’s resignation stands as the principal historical example where the combination of criminal investigation, bipartisan congressional resolve, and eroding public support produced an exit without an impeachment conviction. Contemporary retellings emphasize that all three branches of government were engaged in the accountability process that forced his decision [5].
2. The 25th Amendment: a constitutional bypass that hasn’t been used to permanently oust a president
The 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for transfer of power when a president is incapacitated, with Section 4 allowing the vice president and a majority of principal officers to declare a president unable to discharge duties; experts stress the bar for its use is high and politically fraught [6] [7]. Sources note the amendment was designed to fill gaps in continuity, not to serve as a routine political remedy; its procedural and evidentiary requirements make a forcible, permanent removal without impeachment unlikely in practice [3] [4].
3. The 14th Amendment and other constitutional theories for disqualification have limited historical application
Legal scholars in the provided sources outline the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause as a potential tool to bar or remove a president who engaged in insurrection or rebellion, but historical and procedural hurdles have kept it largely theoretical [3]. The sources describe these routes as legally untested for national leaders and emphasize that courts, Congress, or both would need to act in novel ways to apply the clause to a sitting president—an outcome the literature treats as uncertain and politically contentious [8] [3].
4. Historical practice shows resignation or impeachment were the only real accountability outcomes
The modern record shows two accountability pathways with real precedent: resignation under political pressure (Nixon) and impeachment proceedings culminating in removal by Senate conviction (no president convicted). There is no recorded instance in the provided material of a president being forcibly removed by the 25th Amendment or the 14th Amendment without impeachment proceedings; the sources emphasize the absence of such a precedent while noting the presence of constitutional tools that remain untested as removal mechanisms [5] [4].
5. Why political and legal experts warn removal without impeachment is unlikely in practice
Analysts point out the system is designed to protect the presidency through legal safeguards and political thresholds—supermajorities, cabinet consensus, and judicial review—which together make extraordinary removal outside impeachment procedurally difficult and politically explosive [6] [3]. The literature underscores that even when competence or misconduct concerns arise, congressional impeachment remains the constitutionally straightforward remedy with a clearer procedural path and established historical traction [3] [8].
6. What the historical record omits and why that matters for future crises
Sources reveal an important omission: while constitutional alternatives exist, there is no tested, widely accepted playbook for using them to permanently oust a president, leaving ambiguity about outcomes in extreme scenarios [4] [3]. This lacuna matters because it means future crises would likely trigger intense legal battles, politicized institution-building, and uncertainty about legitimacy and continuity—issues that historians flagged during the Nixon episode when all branches had to coordinate responses [5].
7. Bottom line: Nixon’s resignation is the practical precedent; other routes remain untested and legally fraught
Historically, Nixon’s resignation is the chief example of a president leaving office under pressure without a Senate conviction; other constitutional mechanisms have been discussed and drafted into law but lack precedent for forcible removal without impeachment. Contemporary sources emphasize that while the 25th Amendment and 14th Amendment provide theoretical pathways, their application would trigger contested constitutional and political fights rather than offer a straightforward substitute for impeachment [1] [3] [4].