While going through the legislation Bills on house.gov, for this term, and scrolled by several titles alluring to the impeachment of Donald Trump. I narrowed the list to those built on the offenses POTUS enacted during this term. I believe for his first term he earned two impeachments, though he wasn’t pushed out of office for either. Impeached twice.
At the whirlwind speed he commits high crimes and frauds this term, and the level of creativity empowered while conjuring the next one, pausing for a moment and taking stock helps — helps reduce stress, helps exhale the victim mode, helps to keep it fresh, and saves from the narcissistic level of gas-lamping.
I did use the crimes I found in those Bills which hang in the dockets … waiting like a bullet in a gun to hit the floor. However, between the time I discovered them and sitting down to write this, Trump has found new and news worthy offenses I’ll add in as well.
There is much to consider and prepare, best to get started:
An introduced resolution is an accusation by its sponsor—not a judicial finding, criminal conviction, or conclusion adopted by the House. At the same time, impeachment does not require proof of an ordinary statutory crime. Historically, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” includes serious abuses of official power, corruption, violations of the public trust, and conduct fundamentally incompatible with the presidency.
The five resolutions I found through August 5, 2026, are:
- H.Res.353, introduced April 28, 2025—seven articles.
- H.Res.415, introduced May 15, 2025—one article.
- H.Res.537, introduced June 24, 2025—one article.
- H.Res.939, introduced December 10, 2025—two articles.
- H.Res.1155, introduced April 6, 2026—thirteen articles.
Several articles overlap. I have preserved each formal article below, while explaining where the accusation appears strong, where it remains contested, and where the resolution overstates its evidence.
H.Res.353 — introduced by Rep. Shri Thanedar
1. Obstruction of justice, denial of due process, and failure to execute the laws
This article brings together several allegations:
- That Trump’s Justice Department misled federal courts.
- That the criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams was dismissed as part of a political immigration bargain.
- That prosecutors and officials connected with January 6 cases were purged.
- That the administration disregarded court orders involving Alien Enemies Act deportations.
- That it failed to correct the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
- That inspectors general and Merit Systems Protection Board officials were unlawfully removed.
- That personal data was improperly exposed through DOGE-related access.
The Abrego Garcia matter is the strongest documented component. The Supreme Court record states that the government acknowledged his removal to El Salvador violated a withholding-of-removal order and was therefore illegal. The Court required the government to facilitate his release and treat the case as though he had not been improperly removed.
Why this may be impeachable: A president who knowingly orders subordinates to defy courts, fabricates compliance, or refuses to remedy an acknowledged illegal deportation would be attacking both due process and the judiciary’s constitutional authority.
What remains to be proved: The article groups many separate events together. For impeachment against Trump personally, an inquiry would need evidence of his knowledge, instructions, approval or deliberate tolerance of the noncompliance—not merely misconduct somewhere within the executive branch.
2. Usurpation of Congress’s spending power
This article alleges that Trump attempted to:
- Freeze or “impound” money Congress had already appropriated.
- Dismantle USAID, the Department of Education and other congressionally established programs without legislation.
- Use DOGE to prevent authorized expenditures.
- Eliminate federal positions and programs in ways that effectively repealed laws without congressional action.
The January 2025 Office of Management and Budget memorandum directed agencies to pause broad categories of federal financial assistance, although it included the qualification “to the extent permissible under applicable law.”
This is a potentially strong separation-of-powers article. The Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power of the purse. The Impoundment Control Act also restricts presidential refusal to spend appropriated funds. During this term, the Government Accountability Office has found violations involving several programs, including NIH funding, Head Start, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and FEMA funds.
The essential distinction is:
- Trump may recommend that Congress abolish or reduce a program.
- He ordinarily may not treat an existing appropriation or statutory agency as though Congress never enacted it.
A deliberate, systematic effort to nullify Congress’s enacted laws would fit comfortably within historical understandings of impeachable abuse of power.
3. Abuse of trade authority and international aggression
This article attacks Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs and his statements concerning Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Panama and Gaza. It alleges that he used trade powers recklessly, harmed the economy and threatened territorial aggression or annexation.
This is one of the weaker articles as drafted.
Tariffs may exceed delegated statutory power. Threatening another country may be dangerous or diplomatically destructive. But bad trade policy, economic damage and inflammatory rhetoric are not automatically impeachable. The resolution would need to establish something more specific—for example:
- Deliberate use of a fabricated emergency to evade Congress.
- Personal enrichment through advance knowledge of tariff decisions.
- Use of military threats contrary to treaties or statutes.
- Defiance of a final judicial determination that the tariffs were unlawful.
Without that additional element, much of this article resembles a severe policy disagreement rather than a clearly framed constitutional offense.
4. Retaliation against protected speech and political opposition
The resolution alleges that Trump used government authority against law firms, journalists, prosecutors and political opponents by:
- Suspending security clearances.
- Restricting access to federal buildings.
- Threatening government contracts.
- Ordering investigations.
- Pressuring law firms into providing hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal work.
- Excluding the Associated Press over its refusal to adopt the term “Gulf of America.”
- Removing or punishing officials associated with investigations of Trump.
This is a substantial impeachment theory. The president may criticize a newspaper or law firm. He may not generally use contracts, clearances, prosecutions or regulatory authority as punishment for protected viewpoints.
The law-firm orders are particularly serious because they appear to combine an official governmental penalty with an invitation to negotiate relief by supplying valuable legal services. Whether that meets the criminal definitions of bribery or extortion would require evidence of intent and exchange. But impeachment reaches corrupt or coercive uses of presidential authority even where criminal prosecution would be uncertain.
5. Creation of an unlawful office through DOGE and Elon Musk
This article alleges that Trump created DOGE without proper statutory authority and permitted Elon Musk to exercise powers belonging to a Senate-confirmed “principal officer.” It also connects DOGE activity to personnel decisions, access to protected information, spending suspensions and interference with statutory agencies.
This article is legally interesting but incompletely developed.
A president may create advisory bodies and employ White House advisers. The constitutional problem arises when an adviser who has not been appointed and confirmed exercises independent governm