The Sleeping Clip Is Not the Impeachment Issue
Nobody serious is arguing that Donald Trump should be impeached because he appeared tired or may have fallen asleep at a September 11 ceremony. That was never the larger issue for me. The video matters mainly because Trump spent years calling Joe Biden “Sleepy Joe” and using Biden’s age and public appearances as political weapons. When similar images involve Trump, people naturally notice the difference in how supporters respond. But whether Trump closed his eyes at a ceremony is small compared with the constitutional questions surrounding his presidency. Impeachment is about abuses of public power, not whether somebody nodded off in a chair.
What Impeachment Is Actually For
The Constitution allows impeachment for treason, bribery, and “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That phrase has historically included serious abuses of presidential authority and violations of the public trust, not simply ordinary crimes. The Constitution Annotated explains that impeachment developed as a way to address misconduct that damages the state or involves abuse of official power. A president therefore does not have to fall asleep, appear old, or receive a medical diagnosis before impeachment becomes relevant. The real question is whether presidential power has been seriously abused.
Trump Has Already Been Impeached Twice
Trump’s impeachment history is not theoretical. In 2019, the House impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress involving his dealings with Ukraine and his administration’s resistance to the House investigation. In January 2021, the House impeached him again, this time on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the January 6 attack on the Capitol. The Senate acquitted him in both trials, so he was never removed from office. Those cases nevertheless show that Congress has already treated alleged abuse of presidential power, obstruction, and conduct threatening constitutional government as possible grounds for impeachment.
Current Impeachment Allegations Are About Presidential Power
During Trump’s second term, House members have again introduced impeachment resolutions based on conduct far more serious than appearing sleepy. Representative John Larson introduced H. Res. 1155 in April 2026 containing thirteen proposed articles involving allegations about war powers, domestic military deployment, immigration enforcement, retaliation against protected speech, use of the pardon power, congressional spending authority, resistance to congressional oversight, law enforcement, birthright citizenship, and financial conflicts. These are allegations contained in a congressional resolution; the House has not adopted them as findings. But they demonstrate the kinds of constitutional questions lawmakers are actually debating.
War Powers Raise a Constitutional Question
One of those proposed articles concerns the president’s use of military force without congressional authorization. The Constitution gives Congress important war powers, while the president serves as commander in chief, and presidents of both parties have long disputed where one authority ends and the other begins. Larson’s resolution alleges that Trump exceeded presidential authority in military operations involving Iran and other countries. Whether those actions ultimately satisfy the impeachment standard would require Congress to examine the facts, the relevant statutes, presidential authority, and historical practice. That is the kind of constitutional dispute impeachment was designed to address—not whether a president looked tired during a ceremony.
Immigration Enforcement Has Also Produced Impeachment Claims
Representative Al Green introduced another impeachment resolution, H. Res. 1486, accusing Trump of abusing presidential power through the operation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. Green alleged serious civil-liberties and accountability violations involving federal immigration enforcement. On September 15, 2026, the House voted 232–147 to table the resolution, with 47 members voting present or not voting. Tabling the resolution meant the House did not move forward with impeachment on those allegations. It did not amount to a House finding establishing the allegations as true or false.
Obstruction of Congress Has Already Been Treated as Impeachable
Another important issue is presidential resistance to congressional oversight. Trump’s first impeachment included an article accusing him of obstructing Congress by directing broad resistance to House subpoenas during the Ukraine investigation. The House approved that article in 2019, although the Senate later acquitted him. That history matters because impeachment is partly about the constitutional balance between branches of government. If Congress cannot obtain information necessary to investigate presidential conduct, the disagreement can become much larger than an ordinary political fight.
The Pardon Power and Law Enforcement Matter Too
Trump’s use of the pardon power and executive control over law enforcement have also become subjects of impeachment allegations. H. Res. 1155 argues that certain pardons and alleged uses of federal law enforcement for political purposes amount to abuses of presidential authority. The Constitution gives presidents broad pardon power, so disagreement with a pardon alone does not automatically make it impeachable. The constitutional concern would be whether an official power was used corruptly, for personal benefit, to obstruct accountability, or in another way Congress concluded violated the public trust. Those are questions about presidential power, not personality.
Impeachment Is Not the Same as a Criminal Conviction
One reason this debate becomes confusing is that impeachment is not simply another criminal trial. Congress has historically treated “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as capable of including serious abuses of office that may not match a specific criminal statute. The House decides whether to impeach by majority vote, and the Senate decides whether to convict and remove by a two-thirds vote of senators present. That means calling conduct “potentially impeachable” is not the same as proving a crime or declaring a president guilty. The constitutional process requires evidence, investigation, House action, and, if impeachment occurs, a Senate trial.
The Standard Should Still Be Consistent
This is where the sleeping video still teaches me something, but only something smaller. Trump used Biden’s tired appearance, verbal mistakes, and age as political arguments. People are entitled to point out when the same type of observation is treated differently depending on whose name is attached. But presidential accountability should not stop with photographs and nicknames. The more important standard concerns how a president uses the enormous powers of the office. Questions involving war, constitutional rights, congressional authority, law enforcement, pardons, and obstruction deserve far more attention than whether somebody briefly closed his eyes.
Summary
Trump appearing tired at a public ceremony is not an impeachment case. The serious impeachment questions concern the use of presidential power. Trump was impeached in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and again in 2021 for incitement of insurrection, though the Senate acquitted him both times. During his second term, lawmakers have introduced additional articles involving war powers, immigration enforcement, congressional spending, oversight, pardons, law enforcement, and other constitutional issues. Congress has not adopted those current allegations as articles of impeachment, and one recent resolution was tabled. The proper debate is therefore about evidence, constitutional authority, and abuse of public trust—not whether the president looked sleepy.
Conclusion
I am not interested in impeaching anybody for falling asleep. Presidents are human beings, and tiredness is not a high crime or misdemeanor. What concerns me is whether we spend so much time arguing about a photograph that we stop examining how presidential power is actually being used. Donald Trump’s presidency has already produced two impeachments and new impeachment resolutions during his second term. Those proceedings involve questions about abuse of power, congressional authority, military force, law enforcement, civil liberties, pardons, and constitutional government. People can disagree about whether particular allegations meet the constitutional standard. That disagreement should be settled by evidence and the impeachment process itself. The standard should not change with the president, and it should certainly be more serious than whether somebody’s eyes were closed.