Fact check: What are the specific articles of impeachment against Donald Trump?

1. How the 2019 impeachment distilled into two formal articles that reached the Senate — a clean and narrow criminal framing

House Resolution 755 from the 116th Congress produced the two articles that the House actually approved and sent to the Senate: Article I accused President Trump of abuse of power for soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election, and Article II charged him with obstruction of Congress for directing defiance of subpoenas. These two articles are the operative, constitutionally consequential charges that resulted in a Senate trial and a formal acquittal; they represent the most compact, legally focused set of allegations that progressed through the impeachment process ^[1]. The 2019 text and subsequent roll calls remain the baseline legal record when discussing formal impeachment charges that were adjudicated in the Senate, and any later resolutions build on or diverge from this foundational pair ^[4].

2. The 2025 wave of resolutions widened the net — multiple new articles and broader constitutional claims

In 2025 several members introduced broader, multi-article impeachment resolutions, notably H. Res. 353 which lists seven articles encompassing obstruction of justice, usurpation of appropriations, abuse of trade powers, violation of First Amendment rights, creation of an unlawful office, bribery, and tyranny; and H. Res. 537 which adds allegations about abuse of presidential powers and unauthorized military action ^{[2] [5] [3]}. These 2025 resolutions are not identical to the 2019 pair; they expand alleged misconduct into statutory and structural claims that implicate separation of powers and ongoing threats to democratic norms. The expanded articulation shows a strategic shift from discrete acts tied to a particular episode toward a cumulative theory of presidential misconduct and systemic risk ^[6].

3. Points of agreement and divergence across the records — overlap, repetition, and new legal theories

All sources agree that obstruction-related claims feature prominently across texts: obstruction of Congress appears in the 2019 articles and obstruction of justice appears in 2025 drafts ^{[1] [2]}. The divergence lies in scope: the 2019 articles are fact-specific and electoral in focus, while 2025 texts layer on constitutional and statutory theories—appropriations usurpation, trade-power abuse, First Amendment violations, and even criminalized concepts such as bribery. These additional articles signal an intent to craft impeachment as both a response to discrete acts and a tool against perceived systemic abuses. The presence of multiple, sometimes overlapping resolutions indicates competing legislative strategies and differing evidentiary thresholds within the House ^{[7] [2]}.

4. The political and procedural context — why multiple articles and resolutions appear and what they aim to achieve

Multiple impeachment resolutions reflect different sponsors, political moments, and objectives: some members sought a narrow, impeachable offense tied to clear proof; others sought to establish a broader record of alleged wrongdoing to shape public narrative or to lay groundwork for future proceedings. H. Res. 353’s seven-article approach appears designed to argue that Trump’s conduct amounted to an ongoing threat to constitutional governance, while the 2019 H. Res. 755 pursued a narrower path that could secure the House majority needed for referral to the Senate ^{[2] [1]}. These contrasting approaches reveal both legal strategy and political calculation—the former aiming for clear impeachable elements, the latter aiming to marshal public and institutional pressure ^[6].

5. What the evidence record shows and how to read competing claims — agendas, dates, and legal weight

The legally consequential record remains the two articles approved in 2019 and tried in the Senate (abuse of power, obstruction of Congress), while the 2025 resolutions are proposals that expand allegations into additional constitutional and criminal domains; they carry political significance and potential future consequences but differ in evidentiary status ^{[1] [2]}. Analysts should treat the 2019 adopted articles as the definitive, adjudicated charges, and view 2025 multi-article resolutions as assertions that reflect shifting legislative priorities and partisan dynamics. Evaluating these competing claims requires attention to bill text, sponsor intent, vote counts, and subsequent committee action—elements that determine whether an article remains a proposed accusation or becomes a formal impeachment article sent to the Senate ^{[5] [2]}.