Nothing in this column is meant to suggest that if Democrats achieve a majority in the House in next week’s midterms, they should immediately impeach President Donald Trump for a third time.

Republicans are already rejecting hasty calls for impeachment by some impulsive Democrats as unalloyed political payback, and in some cases, they’d be right. And an ugly third impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate might do more harm than good. In fact, America needs the spectacle and drama of another impeachment like it needs another forever war.

But here’s the problem: The Constitution provides not only the possibility of impeachment, it seems to impose an obligation, as well: It doesn’t say that a president “may be removed,” it says that a president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

In other words, the House and Senate have not only a right, but also a responsibility, to remove a president or other officers who have arguably committed “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Here’s what the House could face in January: Trump has called our current involvement with Iran a “military operation,” a “mini-war,” a “little excursion” and a “little trip,” but, let’s face it: It’s a war. Only Congress has the power to declare war. The president is empowered to use military force in limited ways by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, but Trump has blown past those limitations with little more than a peep out of Congress. The war is in a precarious pause, but it’s likely that Trump, in a stunningly cynical calculation, will resume bombing after the midterms.

So how should a Democratic House majority deal with a president who is in violation of both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution? Is there any higher crime than taking our nation to war in violation of the Constitution and the law? The House would have not only a right to act, but also an obligation.

Why does this matter? To prevent future presidents from committing the same offense, of course.

This principle is especially relevant in the case of Trump. In 2019, as the Trump administration held on to nearly $400 million in security aid for Ukraine that had already been approved by Congress, Trump conditioned its release on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s willingness to investigate one of Trump’s political opponents, Joe Biden. You remember: “I would like you to do us a favor, though…”

The House duly impeached Trump. The Republican Senate let him off the hook. And now Trump’s relationship with Ukraine is thoroughly transactional. He has no qualms about threatening Ukraine by withholding military support unless he gets what he wants, which is essentially a Ukrainian surrender.

It’s the same with Trump’s second impeachment: On Jan. 13, 2021, the House impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection” after the Jan. 6 attack on the capitol. Again, the Senate gave Trump a pass, even though seven Senate Republicans voted to convict him.

Six years later Trump is showing signs of his willingness to use federal power to interfere with next week’s midterms. Last week he directed his Department of Justice (and it is “his”) to file a lawsuit to block the certification of Alaska’s Senate election if his preferred Republican candidate doesn’t win.

Further, Trump loyalists and election deniers have been installed in positions that situate them to challenge and obstruct the results of the midterms. When asked about implementing the Insurrection Act in connection with the midterms, Trump said, “I could use it. A lot of people think I should use it sometimes.”

It’s impossible to imagine that Trump will gracefully accept a midterm election that establishes a Democratic majority in the House and/or Senate. He’s already made one attempt to overturn a legitimate election without suffering consequences. If he tries to do it again, how can the Democrats avoid the responsibility—the obligation—of holding him to account with a third impeachment?

Trump’s escape from his two impeachments have only emboldened him. He learned nothing from them. Have we?

_____

_____

©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC