On February 4, 2020, the day before the vote on the first Articles of Impeachment directed at President Trump, Maine Senator Susan Collins justified her intention the vote “No” by saying that the impeachment proceeding had taught him a “pretty big lesson;” and that he would be “much more cautious in the future.” She couldn’t have been more prescient as President Trump quickly learned that he had to remove all Inspector Generals from his administration so his improper actions would not be reported to the Congress. In addition, he arranged for the removal of those Republican members of Congress who did not whole-heartedly support him. Implementing these measures enabled him to escape conviction in his second impeachment proceeding that took place less than a year later.
This leaves unanswered whether Senate Republicans have learned any lessons from not having convicted him in his second impeachment proceeding since he has come back to violate the Constitution, a number of Acts of Congress and scores of political norms, all causing serious damage to the “Rule of Law” which well served our nation through the first 250 years of its existence. It also poses a question for Democrats as to whether they should even try to impeach Trump in the coming year since his removal from office could provide Congressional Republicans with a respite in which they could rehabilitate their depressed approval ratings in advance of the 2028 elections.
Since the beginning of Trump’s second term in January 2025, there have already been three articles of impeachment filed in the House (by Congressmen, Green, Thanedar and Larson); and if the Democrats win control of the House this Fall (as currently expected) further resolutions seeking a third Trump impeachment proceeding seems likely. This possibility has not escaped the President who is now employing a number of tactics designed to prevent the Republicans from losing control of the House. These tactics include (a) gerrymandering Congressional Election Districts in those states in which Republicans control their state’s legislature, (b) passing federal legislation restricting who can vote, and (c) empowering the U.S. Postal Service to limit which voters can vote by mail. He has even offered a bribe to his supporters to go to the polls and elect Republicans running for the Congress.
Should these efforts fail to make it likely that the Republicans will retain their control of the House, President Trump also seems prepared to utilize ICE agents (and possibly veterans of the December 6th raid on the U.S. Capitol) to intimidate voters in Democratic leaning Congressional Election Districts or even to take control of the voting machines and ballots in those EDs and have House Speaker Johnson pick whom he would like to serve in the Congress. The only thing that the President does not appear to have contemplated is actually taking actions which might enhance his (and his party’s) standing in the eyes of American voters. Indeed, he seems more concerned with constructing his Führerbunker below his new White House ballroom and his proposed 250-foot-tall victory arch to be located between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.
There is little doubt that President Trump’s favorability rating has sunken to new depths. The Economist currently reports that it now stands at -26 (with 35% of Americans approving of his actions and 61% disapproving them). Even many die-hard MAGA Republicans, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rand Paul have been critical of him. In addition, the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal has heavily criticized him for making an enemy of Canada, our closest ally. In addition, President Trump has insulted our NATO allies to such a degree that they have refused to come to his rescue in his misbegotten war with Iran which actually is a greater threat to them than it is to the U.S.
To be sure there are ample reasons for impeaching President Trump. At the top of the list is his commencement of the war against Iran without first having obtained the approval of the Congress, as required by the Constitution. President Trump has often characterized the hostilities he commenced against Iran as “a war”; however, when asked why he did not seek Congressional authorization for his having initiated that conflict, he asserted that it does not rise to the level of an act of war. Instead, he asserted that it is simply a brief and discreet military engagement seeking to convince Iran to give up its program to develop nuclear weapons. Considering the number of bombs dropped (13,000), the number of fatalities (over 3,600) and the large number of U.S. military personnel involved in the conflict (more than 50,000), it’s hard not to classify this conflict as anything less than a war.
In addition, U.S. armed forces have instituted blockades of Iranian ports and have interdicted shipping in international waters, both of which are universally characterized as “acts of war.” Not even our Trump-friendly Supreme Court is likely to conclude that the conflict President Trump initiated in Iran is not an act of war requiring advance Congressional approval. The fact that Trump himself had boasted that U.S. armed forces had “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities only a few months earlier constitutes an admission that there was ample time for him to have sought Congressional approval.
Also among President Trump’s violations of the U.S. Constitution have been his unilateral impositions of tariffs on imports from scores of foreign nations. These infractions began on April 2, 2025, a date which Trump has labeled as “Liberation Day.” On that day he signed Executive Order No. 14257 based upon the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), calling for 10% tariffs on the imports from 180 nations (a few of which have never exported goods to the U.S.). That announcement caused the U.S. stock markets to decline by roughly 10% which, in turn, prompted President Trump to declare a 90-day delay in the effective date of those tariffs. During that 90-day period some of the proposed tariffs were reduced while others were increased. At least seven legal actions were commenced challenging the President’s authority to impose those tariffs. Those cases were ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2026, with the Court ruling that Trump’s reliance on the IEEPA was misplaced and ordering the federal government to refund the roughly $166 billion in tariffs it had collected.
Although the Trump administration agreed to comply with the Court’s order, as of June, 2026 only $81 billion had been refunded. Moreover, the Trump administration sought to pressure the remaining individuals and entities not to seek refunds for the tariffs they had paid. In addition, the Trump administration immediately imposed a new set of tariffs based upon other legislation authorizing the President to impose tariffs under specified conditions. While the new tariffs also rely upon dubious legal rationales, the cases challenging their imposition have been proceeding slowly up the federal judiciary without any sense of urgency that these new tariffs (a) are costing working class Americans hundreds of billions of dollars and (b) the Trump administration is likely to balk at complying with the Court’s eventual orders that those improperly imposed taxes be refunded.
A third basis for again impeaching President Trump is the unlawful nature of his program to detain and deport millions of aliens, many of whom are in the U.S. legally and some of whom are actually U.S. citizens. While this program was initiated on the premise that only “the worst of the worst” would be expelled, the simple fact is that almost 80% of those who have been incarcerated have no criminal record (not even a traffic ticket) and include many children. In short, this is not a program designed to reduce crime, but rather one aimed at cleansing the U.S. population of non-Caucasian aliens.
It’s not just that the thought of ethnic cleansing is appalling, but that many of those being incarcerated or deported had been providing useful and productive services; and the Trump administration has seemingly proceeded without any plans or (even concerns) as to how their services will be replaced. In addition, the manner in which these individuals are being treated seems to be intentionally cruel in an effort to discourage others from seeking refuge in the U.S. This has resulted in the deaths of dozens of individuals being kept in unsanitary detention camps with insufficient nourishment and a want of medical care. It leaves one to wonder whatever happened to the nation that once welcomed anyone willing to work hard to create better lives for themselves and their children.
Other bases for impeaching President Trump include the following:
Refusing to expend funds appropriated by the Congress, and using such funds for expenditures not authorized by Congress;
Refusing to release the Epstein files in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act;
Destroying the East Wing of the White House without Congressional approval;
Terminating the employment of protected civil servants, not because they had acted inappropriately, but because they had participated in governmental actions legally directed at the president;
Illegally discharging over a dozen Departmental Inspector Generals to prevent them from carrying out their Congressionally-directed duties to report matters to the U.S. Congress; and
Illegally receiving a $400 million aircraft “gifted” to him by Qatar in violation of the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution and then causing the U.S. government to expend an estimated additional $600 million upgrading it, all without Congressional approval.
In addition to having caused his administration to knowingly and repeatedly take actions in violation of the U.S. Constitution and various Acts of Congress, he has caused it to take many other ill-considered actions which have caused inordinate and irreparable damage to our nation and to the world in which we live, including the following:
Abusing the pardon power granted to him as the president to free individuals (such as former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez and Ross Ulbricht, both of whom had committed heinous crimes) because they have made substantial financial contributions to or on behalf of President Trump;
Directing the Department of Justice to pursue frivolousncriminal proceedings against his perceived enemies (such as James Comey, Andrew McCabe and David Hearn), and while contemporaneously refusing to prosecute DHS employees who murdered citizens who had committed no crime;
·Employing the powers of the presidency to extort money and concessions from law firms and news media;
;Destroying our nation’s relationships with its allies, including its relationship with Canada, its longest and closest ally;
Wasting over $100 billions in pursuing the Iran War and hundreds of millions of dollars on other projects not approved by the Congress including White House renovations and the construction of a large (250-feet high) Triumphal Arch on government property;
Upsetting international trade by starting the war with Iran which has led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz;
Exasperating control climate change by causing the abandonment of efforts to develop and utilize renewable sources of energy and encouraging the use of fossil fuels;
Encouraging the states to gerrymander Congressional election districts and thereby diminishing the rights of millions of Americans to have a meaningful voice in the direction of our federal government;
Causing the federal government to unnecessarily increase its fiscal deficit endangering the economic well-being of future generations of Americans;
Causing the Congress to pass tax legislation which skews the nation’s wealth away from working class Americans and into the hands of the nation’s wealthiest citizens;
Causing the elimination or diminution of healthcare services for millions of Americans;
Deploying armed federal troops to patrol the streets of U.S. cities over the objections of local government officials; and
Using his powers as President as an inducement in a multitude of schemes to enrich himself and members of his family.
So long as the Republicans maintain their majority position in the House of Representatives, there is no chance that an article of impeachment seeking to remove President Trump will be voted on, much less approved. This means that the three sets of impeachment articles that already have been introduced will die when the current session of Congress ends in early January. This raises the question as to whether there will be new impeachment resolutions introduced in the next Congress. The President’s illegal and ill-advised actions itemized above making it highly likely that there will be new impeachment resolutions submitted after the new Congress convenes in January 2027. Although the Democrats will likely have a majority in the House of Representatives (and possibly also in the Senate), it remains unclear that there will be action on those submissions.
One problem is that unless the Democrats also win a significant majority in the Senate, the chances of obtaining the 67 votes required to convict the President of an article of impeachment are extremely low. Thus, little will be gained by proceeding to adopt articles of impeachment. Moreover, it will surely elevate animosity with Republican members of the Congress making it unlikely that any positive action will be taken by the Congress while President Trump remains in office. This would place Democratic members of the Congress in the embarrassing position of having achieved nothing to help working-class Americans after promising to rectify all of the problems created by the Trump administration.
Another problem with seeking to impeach President Trump is that it will elevate Vice President Vance into the presidency. Vance is a currently an undefined politician even though he has openly approved many of President’s Trump’s injurious actions. Thus, there is a real danger that handing the presidency to him will simply perpetuate many of the ill-advised programs that Trump championed and the veto any Democratic efforts to repeal those programs. Equally troubling is the possibility that Vance may be far more successful than an mentally deteriorating Trump in carrying out those tasks. Thus, removing Trump may do little to cure the problems currently plaguing our nation. In addition, from a pure political perspective, it would be foolish for the Democrats to give Vance a chance to serve as president and possibly win the confidence of American voters. That could make him a very viable presidential candidate in 2028. At the very least, it would give the Republicans a fighting chance to regain the public support they had when Trump was re-elected in 2024.
On the other hand, if the Democrats don’t at least try to remove President Trump, they may be viewed by their own supporters as “all-talk-and-no-action.” The motivation for taking action, however, goes far beyond that. President Trump has become increasingly unhinged since he returned to office in January 2025. This is evident from his having commended the war in Iran without even conferring with the Congress or our nation’s allies. It can also be seen in his late night postings on his “Truth Social” social media platform which include a variety of AI-created pictures depicting him as heroic figures.
As noted above, this past week, he promised to give every adult American $5,000 if the Republicans retain control of the House and Senate. Setting aside the notion that this probably represents an illegal bribe, it would require the disbursement of over $1 trillion, something even a Republican-controlled Congress is unlikely to authorize. Still, it’s no worse than his fixation on annexing Canada and Greenland. These recent actions indicate that as badly as he has run the country during the first nineteen months of his second term, the remaining months could be even more destructive; and this does not even take into consideration that he may try to remain in office following the end of his current term as our president just as he tried to do so following his first term as president.