The debate over impeaching and removing Donald Trump is intensifying, but the stakes could rise sharply after November’s congressional elections. The political conflict, according to this analysis, could become “thermonuclear.”

The U.S. system of government—including the Constitution, the law and the institutions of justice—was not designed to handle the scale of alleged cheating and impunity now being witnessed. Impeachment and removal may be inadequate responses, but they are the only constitutional tools available to address a president accused of criminal conduct. The bar is high by design: the House can impeach with a simple majority, but removal requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, a threshold no president has ever crossed—Andrew and Bill Clinton were impeached and acquitted, and Richard Nixon resigned before the full House could vote. If the country does not attempt to use them, the argument goes, the rule of law risks becoming little more than a slogan.

That principle is already under pressure. American voters have shown a willingness to exchange the rule of law for the promise of “economic stability,” which the analysis describes as effectively an IOU. Trump could potentially escape accountability for alleged theft, lies and corruption while the country moves on. The political focus could instead shift toward the economy and Trump’s failure to deliver on that promise, a message that might be easier to advance than seeking to convict him for specific crimes.

The Supreme Court has held that the president is immune from criminal prosecution, further complicating the meaning of the constitutional phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors.” That ruling, Trump v. United States, dates to July 2024 and turned on the distinction between official and unofficial acts. The consequences attributed to illegal war, illegal deportations and illegal taxes are described as profound and overlapping, affecting people broadly while largely sparing the extremely wealthy.

Economic pressures are also mounting. Diesel prices have set records for three consecutive days, a development expected to raise food prices, since diesel powers the trucks, trains and farm equipment that move American goods from fields and factories to store shelves. Home heating oil costs are expected to increase by 30 percent. Another energy shock could trigger a recession. Reporting on rising diesel prices and grocery costs was published by Marketplace, while CNN reported on projected increases in heating-oil costs.

Ending the war would not necessarily end the economic pain. Risk analyst Brett Erickson wrote Tuesday on X: “the problem that should concern every person right now is that Iran has no intention of letting Trump off the hook before the US midterms, and will seek to escalate aggressively in the days and weeks leading up to November in order to ensure maximum political fallout takes place for President Trump.”

Erickson added: “It is also increasingly clear that President Trump will himself throw a Hail Mary escalation after the midterms, which will subsequently force Iran to escalate once again in order to move to checkmate Trump and potentially bring this war to an end.”

Under that scenario, the war could continue while impoverishing Americans, or it could end without immediately relieving the economic damage. The argument is that a failure on such a large scale should produce equally significant consequences. Impeachment and removal remain the only available mechanisms, leaving the country with a choice between trying to use them and continuing to accept the situation.

What could change Republican support

Writer, author and poet Noah Berlatsky has argued that impeachment and removal may be more achievable than commonly assumed in a new article for his newsletter, Everything Is Horrible. In an interview, Berlatsky identified three factors that could determine whether removal becomes possible: the size of a Democratic electoral wave, Trump’s response to Democratic victories and the degree of economic pain experienced by the public. The president’s party has historically lost House seats in nearly every midterm election since World War II, and all three variables—approval polling, energy costs and the tempo of the war—are trackable in real time heading into November.

Berlatsky said those factors could combine to drive Trump’s approval rating sharply lower. “Twenty five percent approval would mean the GOP would be about evenly split on him,” he said Tuesday. “That could be an inflection point.” His newsletter article is available at Everything Is Horrible, and the publication’s homepage is here.

Asked how much damage Trump would need to inflict on the Republican Party for Republicans to support removal, Berlatsky said it was difficult to know. Trump’s approval rating is around 35 percent, he said, but “we’re not there yet.”

He pointed to two earlier moments when significant numbers of Republicans appeared prepared to abandon Trump: the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape and the insurrection. Trump survived the first episode because he was already the party’s nominee and there appeared to be no alternative. He survived the second because he was leaving office and Republicans hoped he would disappear from political life.

A similar crisis after a disastrous midterm election could produce a different outcome if Trump were a lame-duck president and appeared likely to damage the party’s prospects for 2028. Berlatsky described one possible sequence as Democrats finishing the midterms with 56 or 57 senators, followed by another unsuccessful violent coup attempt and a decline in Trump’s approval rating to about 25 percent. At that point, he said, the Republican Party could be roughly divided over Trump. For scale, Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats, so that outcome would require a net Democratic gain of nine or 10 seats.

Affordability, impeachment and Democratic strategy

Berlatsky was also asked about House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ decision to play down impeachment while prioritizing “affordability.” He said Jeffries’ position should be viewed in the context of his responsibility to the Democratic caucus and his focus on protecting vulnerable districts.

According to Berlatsky, Jeffries’ statements are strategic rather than necessarily expressions of his personal convictions. Democrats representing purple and red districts may believe that impeachment is unlikely to succeed and would not appeal to persuadable Trump voters, while affordability is a more effective party message.

Berlatsky said he was not certain that approach was correct, but argued that Jeffries’ current messaging would not necessarily predict what Democrats would do after a large electoral wave and a sharp fall in Trump’s popularity. Democratic leaders were also reluctant to pursue impeachment during Trump’s first term, he noted, until Trump’s alleged interference in Ukraine and the subsequent coup forced them to act.

He cited Jeffries’ support for expanding the Supreme Court and for aggressive blue-state gerrymandering as examples of positions that may have changed in response to Trump’s actions and pressure from the Democratic caucus. In Berlatsky’s view, events may matter more than individual political.

Possible grounds for removal

Berlatsky argued that if Republicans appeared willing to remove Trump on specific grounds, Democrats should allow them to choose the basis for removal. That approach could require negotiations and provoke resistance, he said, but the political calculation would be straightforward: if Republicans would support a particular ground and the votes needed for removal were within reach, Democrats should use that ground.

He compared the situation with the impeachment following the coup attempt. Although there were many possible grounds for impeaching Trump, the post-coup impeachment focused on the coup because Republicans were more likely to support that case. Seven Republican senators ultimately voted for conviction in the Senate, well short of the 67 votes required to remove a sitting president.

Another position is to “let Trump cook”—to avoid removing him unless he attempts another coup and allow him to damage the Republican Party over the next two years. Berlatsky said that view may explain some Democratic hesitation, but he considers Trump extremely dangerous. Leaving him in office, he said, would remain an ongoing threat to the Constitution, democracy and the lives of people around the world.

Berlatsky said Vice President JD Vance would also be terrible, but argued that Vance was not as completely detached from reality as Trump. Trump, he said, fails to recognize a world outside his own perspective and therefore takes reckless actions that may be unlikely to succeed but can cause severe harm, citing the coup as an example.

Removing Trump could also restrain a successor, Berlatsky said. Accountability has value in itself, and Trump represents a unique danger. If Congress could remove him, Berlatsky argued, it should do so.

What would follow removal?

A final question concerned what would happen if Trump were impeached and removed, given that he has not historically obeyed the law. The United States has never faced this precise situation, and the question was whether Trump would leave quietly or attempt to hold the country hostage.

Berlatsky said that, under his understanding, Trump would lose all official power immediately upon removal. He would no longer be president, and JD Vance would become president, as the 25th Amendment provides. Trump would have no authority to issue orders, command the military, remain in the White House or direct anyone in an official capacity.

The remaining uncertainty would concern Trump’s followers and Vance. Trump’s supporters could attempt a coup to overthrow Vance, or Vance could continue treating Trump as though he were still president. However, Berlatsky said Trump would already be massively unpopular after removal, making it difficult to imagine Vance giving up the presidency to assist him.

Source: Alternet