House Delivers Articles of Impeachment Against Trump, Thrusting Washington Back Into Constitutional Crisis

WASHINGTON — For only the second time in American history, and the first involving a president already impeached in a prior term, the House of Representatives on Tuesday formally delivered articles of impeachment against a sitting president to the United States Senate, setting the stage for yet another impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump.

Shortly after sunset, nine House impeachment managers walked across the Capitol to present the article charging Mr. Trump with incitement of insurrection, a solemn procedural moment that underscored how extraordinary — and how familiar — the moment has become. The article will be read aloud on the Senate floor, formally triggering the next phase of a process that has come to define the Trump era.

It is a moment without precedent. Mr. Trump is now the only president in American history to face impeachment proceedings in two separate terms, and potentially the only one to be impeached more than twice. What once seemed unimaginable has become routine enough to provoke both alarm and exhaustion across the political spectrum.

Yet behind the spectacle lies a far more consequential struggle: whether the constitutional system of checks and balances can still constrain a president accused by members of Congress of authoritarian behavior.

A Broad and Severe Set of Charges

The article delivered Tuesday is part of a broader impeachment effort that has been building for weeks. Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas, formally introduced articles accusing Mr. Trump of “devolving American democracy into authoritarianism, with himself as the authoritarian,” language that stunned even seasoned lawmakers with its bluntness.

In parallel, House Resolution 353 outlines seven distinct articles of impeachment, charging the president with obstruction of justice, abuse of trade powers, violations of First Amendment rights, bribery and corruption, usurpation of Congress’s power over federal spending, the creation of unlawful executive offices — and, most strikingly, tyranny.

The word is not used lightly. In American political history, “tyranny” has typically been reserved for descriptions of monarchy or foreign dictatorships, not domestic presidents. Its appearance in a formal congressional document marks a rhetorical escalation that reflects how deeply broken trust has become between the executive branch and Congress.

“These are not symbolic accusations,” one Democratic aide said. “They go to the core of how the government is supposed to function.”

Power, Money and the Courts

At the center of the impeachment push is the claim that Mr. Trump has systematically exceeded the authority of his office.

Lawmakers cite repeated efforts to obstruct investigations into his conduct, including pressure on the Justice Department and refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas. They accuse the president of redirecting federal funds without congressional approval, undermining the Constitution’s assignment of budgetary authority to the legislative branch.

The articles also focus heavily on trade policy. Mr. Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs — imposed unilaterally and expanded well beyond previous norms — has fueled inflationary pressures, provoked retaliation from foreign governments and unsettled global markets. Critics argue that the president has used trade powers as a personal political weapon, stretching statutory authority to its breaking point.

Equally alarming to Democrats are allegations of retaliation against critics. The impeachment resolution accuses Mr. Trump of using federal agencies to punish media organizations, threaten broadcasters and investigate political opponents, conduct that lawmakers argue violates the First Amendment’s core protections.

Perhaps most politically volatile are the bribery and corruption charges. The articles allege that foreign governments and business interests have steered money to Trump-owned properties in exchange for favorable treatment, effectively turning the presidency into a profit-generating enterprise. While similar allegations surfaced during Mr. Trump’s first term, Democrats say the scale and brazenness of the conduct has intensified.

A Familiar Political Divide

The White House has dismissed the impeachment effort as a partisan “witch hunt,” arguing that Democrats are attempting to overturn an election they lost. Republican leaders have echoed that message, framing the proceedings as an abuse of Congress’s power and warning that impeachment has become a routine political weapon.

“There is nothing normal about trying to impeach a president simply because you disagree with him,” a senior Republican senator said.

Yet even within Democratic ranks, there is unease. Some lawmakers worry that another impeachment could energize Mr. Trump’s base, alienate swing voters and distract from pressing economic concerns. Polling suggests that while many Americans disapprove of the president’s actions, a majority say they are weary of impeachment battles and want Congress to focus on governance.

That tension — between accountability and political fatigue — has defined nearly every stage of the Trump presidency.

Stakes Beyond Washington

The outcome of the impeachment trial is far from certain. Republicans retain enough seats in the Senate to block conviction, making removal from office unlikely unless political dynamics shift dramatically.

But impeachment’s impact extends beyond the immediate question of removal. Legal scholars warn that allowing allegations of defiance of court orders and congressional authority to go unanswered could permanently alter the balance of power in Washington.

“If a president can ignore Congress and the courts without consequence, then the presidency itself changes,” said one constitutional law professor. “Those powers don’t disappear with one administration.”

The economic implications are also significant. Prolonged political instability can rattle markets, discourage investment and complicate efforts to address inflation and trade disruptions — pressures already weighing heavily on American households.

Looking ahead, the impeachment fight is poised to shape the 2026 midterm elections. Democrats hope it will galvanize voters concerned about democratic norms, while Republicans believe it will reinforce their argument that Democrats are consumed by opposition to Mr. Trump rather than policy solutions.

An Unsettling New Normal

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the moment is how familiar it feels. Accusations that once would have shocked the nation now compete for attention in a crowded news cycle. The idea that a president could be accused of tyranny no longer stops Washington in its tracks.

That normalization worries historians and civic leaders alike.

“This isn’t just about Trump,” said a former federal judge. “It’s about whether Americans still agree on the basic rules of the system.”

As the Senate prepares to receive the articles and begin its deliberations, the country once again confronts questions that have defined the past decade: How much power should a president have? Who enforces the limits? And what happens when half the nation sees accountability as persecution, while the other half sees it as the last defense of democracy?

For now, the only certainty is that American politics has entered territory it has never fully navigated before — and that the consequences will extend far beyond this impeachment trial.