Trump Dismisses Calls for Removal as Impeachment Efforts Gain Real Traction in Congress**

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is facing the most serious and structurally developed impeachment threat of his second term, as Democratic lawmakers have formally assembled a sweeping, seven-article impeachment resolution and demonstrated substantial House support to advance removal proceedings if political control shifts after the 2026 midterm elections.

The effort is no longer symbolic or rhetorical. It is written into congressional text, backed by recorded floor votes, and openly acknowledged by Trump himself as a genuine danger to his presidency.

At the center of the push is House Resolution 353, a comprehensive impeachment measure that outlines seven distinct articles accusing Trump of constitutional violations ranging from obstruction of justice to what the resolution explicitly labels “tyranny.” The document does not hedge its conclusions. It repeatedly states that Trump is unfit to govern and warns that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to stay in office.

The resolution was introduced as a privileged measure, a procedural designation that limits House leadership’s ability to bury it in committee. By invoking privilege, its sponsor signaled an intent not merely to register protest, but to force confrontation — compelling the House to formally address impeachment rather than quietly sidestep it.

This effort builds on an earlier impeachment initiative that already demonstrated measurable congressional support. In December 2025, a separate resolution introduced by Representative Al Green accused Trump of abusing power and inciting violence, including threatening lawmakers and federal judges. On a key procedural vote, 140 House members voted to advance those articles, defying Republican opposition.

That vote matters. While it fell short of the simple majority required to pass articles of impeachment, it established a clear baseline: more than one-third of the House was already willing to move toward removal, even under Republican control. Democratic strategists argue that number represents a floor, not a ceiling — one that would likely grow under different political conditions.

Trump, for his part, has made clear he understands the threat. Speaking privately to House Republicans in January 2026, he warned that if the party loses control of Congress, impeachment would follow. “If we don’t win the midterms, I’ll get impeached,” he told them, according to multiple accounts. The remark was notable not for its defiance, but for its candor.

Rather than disputing the substance of the allegations, Trump framed impeachment as a political inevitability dependent solely on election outcomes. His defense was not legal exoneration, but electoral protection — an acknowledgment that constitutional arguments for removal already exist and are waiting for the votes to activate them.

The seven articles in H.Res. 353 present an unusually expansive impeachment framework. They accuse Trump of obstructing justice and undermining due process; usurping Congress’s constitutional power over federal spending; abusing trade authority and engaging in unauthorized international aggression; violating First Amendment protections through retaliation against critics and the press; creating an unlawful executive office without statutory authorization; engaging in bribery and corruption; and, finally, exercising power in a manner the resolution describes as tyrannical.

Taken together, the articles portray a presidency operating beyond constitutional limits across multiple domains. Legal scholars note that impeachment resolutions rarely invoke such a broad theory of executive abuse, suggesting that the drafters intend the document to function not only as an indictment of specific actions, but as a judgment on Trump’s governing philosophy itself.

Republican leadership has largely dismissed the resolutions as partisan theater, arguing that impeachment talk is premature and politically motivated. But Trump’s own rhetoric has undercut that narrative. By privately urging Republicans to win elections to prevent his removal, he has effectively confirmed that impeachment is not an abstract threat, but a contingency he takes seriously.

The political implications are significant. Democrats are increasingly framing the 2026 midterms as a referendum on accountability, arguing that voters will decide whether Congress activates the constitutional machinery already in place. Republicans, meanwhile, face the challenge of defending not only Trump’s policies, but his continued immunity from formal scrutiny.

Unlike past impeachment cycles, the groundwork has already been laid. The articles exist. The procedural pathways are defined. A substantial bloc of votes has been demonstrated. What remains uncertain is whether voters will deliver the majority needed to convert preparation into action.

Trump has shown no sign of moderating his behavior or conceding legitimacy to the charges. He has rejected calls for resignation outright, doubling down on an all-or-nothing strategy that hinges entirely on maintaining Republican control of Congress.

In that sense, the stakes of the 2026 elections have become unusually explicit. Win, and Trump remains shielded. Lose, and the impeachment process he has openly acknowledged as waiting in reserve may finally be set in motion.