Trump's Third Impeachment: Could the Democrats Put the President on Trial Over Iran and War Crimes?

Donald Trump may be approaching the most dangerous political confrontation of his extraordinary career. With the American midterm elections scheduled for November 3, 2026, the Republican Party faces the possibility of losing control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Should that happen, the remaining two years of Trump's presidency could become an almost continuous struggle between an embattled president and a hostile Congress determined to investigate his administration, expose alleged wrongdoing and potentially impeach him for a third time. But there is another possibility that deserves serious consideration. The Democrats might go considerably further than previous impeachment proceedings, examining Trump's conduct of the Iran war and raising allegations of violations of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes. The resulting confrontation could become one of the most destructive episodes of political warfare in modern American history.

Greg Sheridan, writing in The Australian on October 10, under the headline "Ugly and Dysfunctional Democrats in Control of the House and Senate Will Go to War with Trump," presents a bleak assessment of the president's electoral prospects. Republican control of the House has become precarious, while the Senate, previously considered relatively secure, is increasingly competitive. Sheridan identifies inflation, the prolonged Iran war and Trump's unpredictable political behaviour as major factors undermining Republican support. The president's approval ratings have fallen into deeply troubling territory, and the economic consequences of the Middle Eastern conflict have weakened the political coalition that returned him to the White House in 2024. The possibility of a Democratic victory in both chambers can no longer be dismissed as wishful thinking by Trump's opponents.

The political irony is considerable. Trump returned to office promising to restore American prosperity, control immigration, avoid unnecessary foreign wars and challenge the Washington establishment. His supporters expected a president who would concentrate upon domestic economic revival rather than becoming entangled in another expensive Middle Eastern conflict. Yet the war against Iran, which began in February 2026, has become one of the defining events of his second administration. Whatever the strategic justification for military action, the political consequences have been substantial. Rising energy prices, continuing military operations and uncertainty about the ultimate objectives of the campaign have created precisely the kind of difficulties that Trump once accused previous administrations of imposing upon the American people.

The approaching midterms could therefore become a referendum not merely upon Trump's domestic policies but upon his entire approach to presidential power. Democrats have already indicated that congressional investigations would become a major priority if they regain control. The president's family business interests, cryptocurrency ventures, relationships with foreign governments, immigration enforcement policies and decisions concerning military operations could all become subjects of congressional scrutiny. Committees would acquire the ability to compel testimony, demand documents and investigate matters that have received relatively limited examination under Republican congressional leadership. The transformation would be immediate and potentially explosive.

Trump's previous experience with impeachment provides some indication of what might follow. During his first presidency, the Democratic-controlled House impeached him in December 2019 over his dealings with Ukraine. He was subsequently acquitted by the Senate. Following the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the House impeached him again, this time on a charge of incitement of insurrection. Once again, the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for conviction. Trump consequently became the first American president to be impeached twice, yet neither proceeding removed him from office. A third impeachment would be historically extraordinary, although the constitutional procedures would remain essentially unchanged.

The political circumstances in 2027 could nevertheless differ significantly from those of Trump's first administration. The Democrats would possess a much larger body of controversial executive decisions to investigate, including the conduct of an ongoing war. They would also be confronting a president whose political style has become increasingly combative and whose relationship with congressional opponents is characterised by profound mutual distrust. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he responds to political attacks by escalating confrontation rather than seeking accommodation. A Democratic Congress might therefore discover that every subpoena, committee hearing and demand for testimony produces another constitutional dispute.

The most serious confrontation could arise from the Iran war. American military action has already generated substantial controversy concerning the constitutional authority to conduct prolonged hostilities without explicit congressional authorisation. The Constitution assigns Congress the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The precise boundaries between these powers have been disputed for generations, particularly as successive presidents have conducted military operations without formal declarations of war. Nevertheless, a prolonged conflict involving substantial American military commitments creates obvious opportunities for congressional challenges to presidential authority.

A Democratic Congress could investigate the original decision to initiate hostilities, the intelligence assessments upon which that decision rested, the administration's stated military objectives and the legal advice concerning the use of force. It could demand testimony from senior military officers, intelligence officials and civilian policymakers. Such investigations might reveal serious disagreements within the administration about the wisdom, legality or likely consequences of particular operations. Even where no unlawful conduct was established, the political damage could be considerable. Congressional hearings have the capacity to expose internal deliberations that governments would ordinarily prefer to keep confidential.

The possibility of war crimes allegations introduces an even more serious dimension. International humanitarian law prohibits deliberate attacks upon civilians, indiscriminate attacks and attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. It also imposes requirements concerning the distinction between military and civilian objectives and the precautions necessary to minimise civilian casualties. These principles apply irrespective of whether a government believes that its overall military campaign is justified. A war may be undertaken for legitimate defensive purposes while particular operations nevertheless violate the laws of armed conflict.

Trump's public rhetoric concerning Iran has already generated controversy. In April 2026, statements threatening the destruction of Iranian civilisation prompted Democratic politicians to accuse the president of contemplating unlawful military action. Some called for impeachment, while others suggested that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment should be invoked. The administration subsequently stepped back from the threatened escalation, but the episode demonstrated how rapidly disputes over military policy could become demands for presidential removal. Importantly, threatening unlawful destruction and actually ordering or carrying out a war crime are different matters. Establishing criminal responsibility would require much more than demonstrating that a president employed inflammatory or reckless language.

Nevertheless, a Democratic-controlled Congress might investigate whether particular American operations complied with the laws of armed conflict. Civilian casualties, attacks upon infrastructure, targeting decisions and the procedures used to assess proportionality could all become subjects of examination. Congressional committees might seek operational records, legal assessments and communications between civilian officials and military commanders. They could also examine whether warnings concerning foreseeable civilian harm were properly considered. Such inquiries would be legitimate exercises of congressional oversight, provided they were conducted fairly and did not presume wrongdoing before the evidence had been examined.

The political consequences could become especially serious if investigations uncovered evidence suggesting that civilian or military officials knowingly authorised unlawful attacks. Questions would then arise concerning the responsibility of senior commanders and the president himself. The doctrine of command responsibility can, under applicable legal standards, attach liability to superiors who possess the requisite knowledge and control and fail to prevent or punish crimes committed by subordinates. But the doctrine does not mean that a president is automatically criminally responsible for every civilian death caused by his armed forces. Individual responsibility must be established through evidence, applicable legal standards and the circumstances of particular operations.

There is also a fundamental distinction between impeachment and criminal prosecution. The House of Representatives can impeach a president for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours, but impeachment is not a criminal trial. It is a constitutional mechanism for determining whether an official should remain in office. The Senate then conducts a trial, and conviction requires the support of two-thirds of senators present. A president could therefore be impeached over alleged abuses of military authority without being convicted of a war crime in any criminal court. Conversely, the existence of credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing would not automatically produce sufficient Senate votes for removal.

This distinction matters because even a Democratic victory in both chambers would not guarantee Trump's removal. Democrats might secure a narrow Senate majority, but they would remain far short of the sixty-seven votes ordinarily necessary to convict when all senators are present. A substantial number of Republicans would have to abandon the president. Given the intense loyalty Trump commands within much of the Republican electorate, such defections would be politically dangerous for individual senators. Unless congressional investigations uncovered exceptionally compelling evidence, the most likely outcome of another impeachment would be a lengthy and bitter confrontation ending without conviction.

The Democrats would also face political risks of their own. Impeachment proceedings could satisfy voters who regard Trump as dangerously unfit for office, but they could also reinforce the belief among his supporters that the political establishment is determined to destroy him regardless of electoral outcomes. Trump has repeatedly portrayed investigations and prosecutions as politically motivated attempts to prevent him from exercising power. Another impeachment would provide him with an opportunity to revive this argument, particularly if Democratic congressional leaders appeared more interested in personal retaliation than in establishing demonstrable wrongdoing.

There is a danger that the entire American political system could become consumed by mutually reinforcing hostility. Congressional Democrats might regard aggressive investigations as necessary to defend constitutional government, while Republicans might interpret the same actions as attempts to overturn the political consequences of Trump's 2024 victory. Each side would increasingly view the other not merely as a political opponent but as an existential threat to the republic. Under such circumstances, compromise becomes extraordinarily difficult because concessions are interpreted as weakness or betrayal. The institutions intended to regulate political disagreement can themselves become instruments of confrontation.

The president would retain considerable constitutional powers even under a hostile Congress. He could veto legislation, exercise executive authority within legal limits and continue directing foreign policy and military operations. Congress, however, possesses substantial authority over appropriations, legislation, oversight and the organisation of the federal government. A Democratic majority could therefore obstruct significant elements of Trump's domestic programme, challenge executive decisions and attempt to impose conditions upon government spending. The result might be repeated budgetary crises, litigation and administrative paralysis.

Foreign governments would watch these developments closely. America's allies depend upon a degree of continuity in Washington's strategic commitments, while its adversaries seek opportunities created by political division. If the president and Congress became locked in a prolonged constitutional struggle, the United States might find it increasingly difficult to formulate coherent policies towards China, Russia and the Middle East. Foreign governments could become uncertain whether presidential commitments would survive congressional opposition or whether major policy decisions might be reversed after the 2028 election. Such uncertainty would weaken America's international influence at a time when its strategic challenges remain formidable.

The Iran war could magnify these difficulties. A Democratic Congress might attempt to restrict military funding, demand the withdrawal of American forces or require renewed authorisation for particular operations. Trump could resist such measures through vetoes, executive interpretations of existing authority or legal challenges. The resulting disputes might extend beyond ordinary disagreements over military strategy to fundamental questions about the constitutional distribution of war powers. In extreme circumstances, the administration could be accused of disregarding congressional restrictions, creating additional grounds for impeachment proceedings.

Yet the possibility of serious constitutional conflict should not obscure the legitimate role of congressional oversight. A president does not acquire immunity from scrutiny merely because investigations may prove politically damaging. Congress has a responsibility to examine executive conduct, particularly where public money, military operations and the possible abuse of governmental authority are involved. The central question is whether investigations are conducted according to defensible legal and evidentiary standards or become exercises in partisan punishment. The same principle should apply regardless of which political party occupies the White House.

Trump's supporters may reasonably argue that Democrats have demonstrated an unusually intense determination to remove him from political life. The two previous impeachments, extensive litigation and years of political hostility provide ample material for this interpretation. But it would be equally mistaken to conclude that every future allegation against Trump must therefore be politically fabricated. Each claim requires examination on its merits. A serious allegation concerning unlawful military conduct cannot be dismissed merely because it originates from political opponents, just as it cannot be accepted as true simply because those opponents regard Trump as dangerous.

There is a further possibility that impeachment might not be the Democrats' most effective weapon. Congressional investigations can impose political costs without requiring a formal impeachment vote. Public hearings, testimony from former administration officials, disclosure of financial records and detailed examinations of military decisions could occupy much of the administration's remaining time. Such proceedings might weaken Trump's political authority, damage the Republican Party's prospects in 2028 and influence public perceptions of his historical legacy. Democrats might therefore conclude that sustained investigation offers greater political advantages than an impeachment trial almost certain to end in acquittal.

The prospect of criminal accountability for alleged war crimes would be even more complicated. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, although questions of international jurisdiction can arise under particular circumstances. Domestic prosecution of a sitting or former president would encounter difficult constitutional and evidentiary questions, including the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling concerning presidential immunity for official acts. Congressional investigations could uncover evidence relevant to possible criminal proceedings, but Congress itself cannot convict a president of war crimes. Any such prosecution would require a competent court, an applicable offence and proof satisfying the relevant legal standard.

The more immediate danger is therefore political rather than criminal. A Democratic victory in November could produce two years in which the president and Congress devote enormous energy to investigating, obstructing and discrediting one another. The Iran war, economic difficulties, disputes over executive power and allegations involving Trump's personal business interests could provide an almost unlimited supply of controversies. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans would continue confronting the practical problems of inflation, employment, housing affordability and national security. The spectacle of Washington consuming itself in political warfare might deepen public disillusionment with both parties.

There is something profoundly troubling about a political system in which every election increasingly appears to determine not merely who governs but who will be investigated, prosecuted or impeached. Constitutional accountability is indispensable, but it becomes dangerous when citizens lose confidence that legal standards are being applied impartially. America has already experienced years of intense conflict over presidential legitimacy, election results and the proper limits of executive authority. A third Trump impeachment, particularly one involving allegations arising from an ongoing war, could intensify these divisions to a degree not previously experienced.

Greg Sheridan is probably correct that a Democratic victory would produce an ugly and dysfunctional political struggle. But the confrontation could become considerably more serious than even that description suggests. Trump has already survived two impeachments, numerous legal controversies and political setbacks that would have ended the careers of most conventional politicians. A third impeachment might once again fail to remove him, but the process could further damage the institutions upon which American constitutional government depends. The greatest danger may not be that either political party achieves a decisive victory, but that their continuing struggle leaves the United States increasingly divided, politically paralysed and less capable of meeting the challenges confronting it, such as an aggressive communist China.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/ugly-and-dysfunctional-democrats-in-control-of-the-house-and-senate-will-go-to-war-with-trump/news-story/5d73c0d3b96e799a42ccea957205d4c5