EDITORIAL: " Witch Hunt " — When the White House Transforms Impeachment into Political Martyrdom

Introduction: the rhetoric of the besieged fortress

A Pavlovian reflex elevated to state doctrine

The moment the word impeachment echoes through the corridors of Capitol Hill, the White House draws the same weapon: the witch hunt. This is no longer a spontaneous reaction — it is a fully codified posture, a mechanism honed to perfection since 2019. Every new congressional initiative is immediately rebranded as a partisan attack, every article of impeachment becomes proof of a Democratic conspiracy against "the will of the people." Press Secretary Abigail Jackson repeated it word for word in June 2026: Democrats " obsessed with Trump " had spent years launching " baseless assaults " and " weaponizing the government against him. "

This framing is not trivial. It transforms a president being challenged on the basis of documented facts into a victim of a corrupt system. And this victimization, elevated to the rank of institutional communications strategy, says something very deep — and deeply troubling — about the state of American institutions in the summer of 2026.

When defense becomes offense

The Trump administration does not merely reject impeachment. It launches frontal attacks on its architects, labels them political criminals, and even attempts to retroactively erase the two indictments of the first term. The Wall Street Journal revealed in June 2026 that Trump and his allies are working toward a symbolic congressional resolution to " expunge " the two impeachments of his first term — a gesture devoid of any legal force, but of considerable symbolic power for the MAGA base. Trump himself told the newspaper: " You have to do it because I did nothing wrong. It was rigged — the whole situation was rigged. "

Constitutional experts are unanimous: the American Constitution provides no procedure for annulling an impeachment. What Trump demands is therefore a political declaration dressed as a legal act. But that is precisely the art of the victimization rhetoric: making the symbolic appear substantive, making resentment pass for justice.

The vocabulary of persecution as a political weapon

" Witch hunt ": anatomy of a survival slogan

The term " witch hunt " has a precise history in American political vocabulary. It evokes McCarthyism, ideological purges, rigged trials. Using it against an impeachment constitutionally initiated by the House of Representatives amounts to a massive semantic shift. Trump first deployed it systematically in 2017 against the Mueller investigation. Since then, the phrase has become a universal defensive reflex: Russia hoax, first Ukraine impeachment, second impeachment in January 2021, the Epstein file, and now the new impeachment threats for a potential third round if Democrats retake the House in November 2026.

Senator Tommy Tuberville repeated it again in May 2026: "Hundreds of innocent Americans have been behind bars for five years because of this manufactured witch hunt" — referring to the January 6 prosecutions. This rhetoric of persecution spreads from the top down, contaminating every level of the Republican Party. It creates an alternative reality in which the normal exercise of parliamentary oversight becomes a illegitimate political weapon.

The " anti-weaponization fund ": victimization monetized

In May–June 2026, the Trump administration attempted to create a $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund designed to compensate "victims of lawfare" — meaning Republican supporters who had faced prosecution. This initiative was blocked by a federal judge and then buried by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche ("We are not moving forward with the fund, period"), but its very existence is telling: the victimization narrative had reached such a degree of maturity that the administration sought to monetize it directly with public funds.

David Corn, in Mother Jones, cut straight to the point: the fundamental premise of the fund — that past administrations weaponized the state against Trump and his allies — is, in his words, " complete nonsense. " The three major Russia investigations — the DOJ Inspector General report in 2019, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2020, and John Durham's final report in 2023 — all concluded that the investigation was legitimate, even if certain FBI practices were criticizable.

The two impeachments of the first term: revisiting an unprecedented double indictment

Ukraine 2019: the founding precedent

The first impeachment of Trump, in December 2019, centered on accusations of abuse of power: Trump allegedly conditioned military aid to Ukraine on the opening of an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden. The House indicted him; the Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him in February 2020. The White House immediately spoke of a " sham impeachment " and a "partisan witch hunt." Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reignited the controversy in June 2026 by releasing declassified documents claiming that Inspector General Michael Atkinson had conducted an investigation based on second-hand testimony and "politicized and fabricated" narratives.

These documents constitute the ideological fuel behind the impeachment expungement attempt. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) announced a resolution to "invalidate Trump's fraudulent impeachment." House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed to Trump that this resolution is "a priority and something Congress should correct." The constitutional exercise is thus reinterpreted as a historical injustice to be erased — an unprecedented rewriting operation in American parliamentary history.

January 2021: incitement to insurrection

The second impeachment, in January 2021, centered on incitement to insurrection following the assault on the Capitol on January 6. This time, seven Republican senators voted for conviction — insufficient to reach the required two-thirds — but it was a historic fracture in Republican unity. In terms of the White House's rhetoric, this bipartisan vote should theoretically invalidate the "partisan witch hunt" label. It did not: the seven "dissenting" senators were treated as traitors, and the vast majority did not survive politically after that vote.

Gene Healy's analysis in Reason Magazine (June 22, 2026) is scathing: the second impeachment was " even more clearly grounded " than the first. Trump had "incited a mob, attempted to intimidate Congress and his own Vice President, and sought to overturn the results of an election he had lost." The constitutional order was circumvented, and the institution of Congress was violated. Calling this a " witch hunt " constitutes an Orwellian audacity.

Institutional architecture put to the test of systematic denial

Impeachment as constitutional safety net

America's Founding Fathers designed impeachment as the last bulwark against an abusive executive. The House charges, the Senate judges — a fundamental balance of powers in any liberal democracy. But this mechanism rests on a presupposition: that political actors accept the legitimacy of the process, even when contesting its conclusions. Yet Trump and his administration have systematically refused that legitimacy, labeling every step of the process a partisan maneuver, every witness a conspirator, every vote an act of betrayal.

A study published in the academic journal Democratization (May 2026) is alarming: since January 2025, America's democracy level, measured by the LDI index, has reportedly fallen back to 1965 levels — the year President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. Legislative oversight of the executive has dropped drastically. Congress has reduced monitoring capacity. The Trump administration filed impeachment resolutions and complaints against federal judges who ruled against the government, calling it "judicial rebellion."

The two-thirds Senate threshold: the structural shield

The real question is not whether the charges are well-founded. It is whether the system can function when one party refuses to play by the rules. Conviction in the Senate requires two-thirds of votes — 67 senators out of 100. With a Republican majority loyal to Trump, that threshold is nearly insurmountable. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) himself warned his constituents in May 2026: if Republicans lose the House in the November midterms, Trump will be " very likely impeached for a third time. " An implicit admission that the constitutional mechanism works — but that its outcome depends on the partisan balance of power.

Jamie Raskin, Democratic representative from Maryland and a potential future chair of the Judiciary Committee if Democrats retake the House, summed up the situation well (June 2026): impeachment "is not a panacea," but " a tool among others, and we will use it if necessary. " This calculated prudence stands in sharp contrast to the Republican catastrophism that presents any new impeachment process as a democratic catastrophe.

The " weaponization " as counter-narrative: when Trump turns the accusation around

The art of presenting oneself as the real victim

The concept of " weaponization " — using the state as a political instrument — has been at the heart of Trumpian rhetoric since 2017. White House Press Secretary Abigail Jackson articulated it clearly in June 2026: " Nobody is better positioned to speak about weaponization of government than Trump — he has been the repeated target of weaponization by his political opponents. " This rhetoric has formidable effectiveness: it neutralizes criticism by reversing it. You accuse him of abusing power? You are the one abusing power by accusing him.

But the documented facts tell a different story. Trump ordered criminal investigations against James Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and John Brennan. His administration conducted assaults against law firms and universities. According to David Corn, "the investigations and prosecutions Trump complains about were not acts of weaponization. They were normal government activity." The actual acts of weaponization, according to the author, are those Trump himself commits — live, before our eyes.

The " deep state " as universal scapegoat

DNI Tulsi Gabbard pushed this narrative to its apex in June 2026 with the release of declassified documents claiming that " deep state actors within the intelligence community fabricated a false narrative " used by Congress to impeach Trump in 2019. These documents, presented as explosive, show that Inspector General Atkinson conducted only a 14-day preliminary investigation, based on second-hand testimony, and that the DOJ had concluded there was " no campaign finance violation " and that "no further action was warranted."

What Gabbard presents as an explosive revelation is in reality a partisan reinterpretation of already known facts. The 2019 investigation was criticized by Durham on certain procedural aspects — particularly the FBI's surveillance of Carter Page. But none of these reports concluded that the overall investigation was a fabrication. The intelligence community, under Marco Rubio himself, reaffirmed in 2020 that Moscow did indeed interfere in the 2016 election in Trump's favor.

The pressure of the midterms: impeachment as an electoral issue

The Democratic calculus: to impeach or not to impeach?

Democrats face a major strategic dilemma heading into the November 2026 midterms. On one side, an energized electoral base demanding a third Trump impeachment. On the other, a leadership that coldly calculates that impeachment without a Senate conviction would be a hollow gesture. Hakeem Jeffries, House minority leader, put it delicately on June 14, 2026: "We have not ruled out or ruled in anything in terms of accountability." He added that Democrats' priority remains to make life more affordable for Americans.

But this cautious calculation is upended by more radical voices. George Conway, Democratic candidate in Manhattan, promised in June 2026 to push for a third Trump impeachment "to permanently neutralize him," while pointing toward the Capitol from his campaign camera. A theatrical gesture, but revealing of the pressure bearing down on Democratic leadership. Rep. John Larson (D-CT) had himself filed articles of impeachment in April 2026, accusing Trump of having become " more unreasonable " and of endangering "the life, safety and security of the American people."

Impeachment as a mobilization tool, not a governing instrument

Gene Healy in Reason Magazine draws a scathing conclusion from the experience of the first two impeachments: the constitutional bar is too high to allow the removal of a president, except under bipartisan circumstances that current polarization renders virtually impossible. Trump "doubled the number of presidential impeachments in American history" and survived each time. He won his party's nomination, then regained the presidency. The seven Republican senators who voted for his conviction in 2021 were almost all politically liquidated.

The lesson Healy draws is profound: if Congress were to find sufficient political will, it should dedicate it to structural reforms — limiting the president's war powers, constraining states of emergency, reducing the ability to legislate by executive order — rather than to an impeachment whose predictable result would be, in Senator Schatz's words, "very likely predictable to everyone." But these reforms are politically thankless. A third impeachment, on the other hand, is electorally profitable.

The White House facing history: expungement as confession

Erasing history or defying it?

Trump's demand to "expunge" his two first-term impeachments is politically fascinating precisely because it is legally absurd. The Constitution provides no mechanism for erasing an impeachment. Constitutional experts are unanimous. Representative Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) said it bluntly to the Wall Street Journal: " That's ridiculous. What happened is history. " Senator Adam Schiff was even more direct: "The stain of Trump's two impeachments cannot be erased."

There is, however, a historical precedent cited by Gene Healy: in 1837, Andrew Jackson's allies in the Senate voted to " expunge " the censure the Senate had imposed on him in 1834. A clerk crossed out the text in the Senate Journal and wrote "Expunged by order of the Senate." But, as Healy notes, " the original remains clearly visible. " History, unlike parliamentary resolutions, does not obey orders. Trump knows this. The expungement is not aimed at history — it is aimed at the MAGA base and the midterm election.

The Epstein file: the " witch hunt " concealing panic

The book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump," reveals that while the administration publicly labeled the Epstein file a " Democratic hoax " and a "witch hunt," Trump's top advisors — Todd Blanche, Susie Wiles, Kash Patel, JD Vance — were holding regular emergency meetings in the Situation Room, normally reserved for national security crises. If it were a " witch hunt ," one struggles to understand why the administration's core leadership would spend weeks managing a nonexistent crisis in the room where the operations against Bin Laden were planned.

This contradiction between the public discourse and the operational reality of the White House is perhaps the most powerful internal refutation of the witch hunt narrative. You do not convene the Situation Room to respond to a fiction. You use it when the threat is real, documented, and serious enough to mobilize the administration's highest officials. The " witch hunt " label is not a conviction — it is a communications shield.

The West facing the American mirror: what impeachment tells the world

Liberal democracy under global pressure

The weakening of American institutions does not occur in a geopolitical vacuum. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea watch closely every episode of institutional paralysis in the United States. Every time the " witch hunt " rhetoric neutralizes a constitutional oversight mechanism, it is our adversaries who benefit. Vladimir Putin built his power on exactly this model: disqualifying all opposition as foreign conspiracy, every investigation as fabrication by enemies of the people, every counterpower as a threat to national stability.

The Democratization study (May 2026) underscores that America's democratic level has returned to that of 1965 — before the Voting Rights Act. Freedom House documented that the Trump administration resisted or ignored court rulings in more than one-third of cases decided against it in 2025. Trump called these acts of resistance "judicial rebellion." Institutional victimization rhetoric thus becomes a tool for dismantling the rule of law, with direct consequences for the West's capacity to defend its values against autocracies that never pretended to play by institutional rules.

The American example and its fractures for the liberal world order

Ukraine is watching too. The West that defends Kyiv against Russian aggression must be credible in defending its own institutions. An American president who labels every constitutional procedure a conspiracy weakens the West's legitimacy as a defender of the international rule of law. This is not a rhetorical detail — it is a first-order geopolitical fact. Zelensky, who resists with admirable determination against Putin's aggression, needs an American partner whose institutions function and whose word carries weight.

Trump is, whether we like it or not, the necessary evil of a West that needs his military and economic power. His relationship with Ukraine and Russia deserves the harshest institutional criticism, without ever ignoring the geopolitical realities that make Washington the irreplaceable pillar of Western security architecture. But this dependence must not blind us: a West that normalizes the destruction of its own oversight mechanisms cannot claim to defend the liberal model against autocracies.

The role of the Republican Senate: accomplice or hostage?

The survival calculus of Republican senators

Understanding the Republican Senate's protective mechanics toward Trump is essential for grasping why the " witch hunt " rhetoric works so effectively. The seven senators who voted for Trump's conviction in 2021 — among them Lisa Murkowski, the only one who "survived politically" according to Healy — paid a considerable electoral price. This political reality creates structural pressure: voting against Trump means political suicide in a Republican Party that has been transformed into an electoral machine in the service of one man.

Senator John Cornyn, in May 2026, made a statement of troubling clarity when he warned that if Republicans lost the House, Trump would " very likely be impeached for a third time. " A revealing formulation: he does not say "unjustly" impeached, he says it would be the logical consequence of a change in majority. This is an admission that impeachment is not judged on its merits, but on the partisan balance of power. The Constitution says the Senate judges. In practice, the party governs.

Trump-Republican Senate friction: the limits of loyalty

Even within the Republican Senate, frictions exist. In June 2026, the relationship between Trump and the Republican Senate reached a " critical point " according to the Associated Press: Trump disrupted attempts to quickly confirm his own nominees and conditioned his support for the surveillance bill on new demands. He threatened to be "the last Republican president" if the electoral bill failed. This volatility creates an atmosphere of permanent uncertainty which, paradoxically, reinforces the siege rhetoric: Trump positions himself as a lone warrior against all, even against his own allies.

This dialectic is calculated. Republican senators' loyalty is not acquired by ideological conviction but by electoral fear. As long as Trump controls the party base, he controls the senators. And as long as the senators obey him, no impeachment can succeed — regardless of the gravity of the charges. This is a de facto constitutional lock, not foreseen by the Founding Fathers, but built brick by brick through Trump's mechanism of dominating his party.

The war against judges: when the executive attacks the counterweights

The executive in open confrontation with the judiciary

One of the most troubling manifestations of institutional victimization rhetoric is the declared war against the judiciary. The Trump administration filed impeachment resolutions against federal judges who had issued unfavorable rulings, accusing them of "judicial rebellion." Trump even publicly targeted Supreme Court justices at the beginning of 2026. This offensive, unprecedented in recent American history, fits perfectly into the logic of the " witch hunt ": every counterpower exercised against the executive is redefined as a hostile political act.

The federal court in Virginia temporarily blocked the anti-weaponization fund in May 2026, scheduling a hearing for June 12. In doing so, it exercised exactly the function the Constitution assigns it. The administration's response was to contest the legitimacy of this ruling while ultimately abandoning the fund under Republican pressure. The pattern repeats itself: initial attack on institutions, tactical retreat under pressure, but maintenance of the victimization narrative for communications purposes.

The doctrine of " my only limits are my own morality "

The Democratization study cited earlier reports an extraordinary statement by Trump: his powers are limited only by " his own morality " and that only the courts — not Congress — have the power to constrain his domestic agenda "in certain circumstances." This presidentialist conception pushed to the extreme is, in itself, a unilateral redefinition of the American constitutional order. It transforms the system of checks and balances into mere rhetorical décor, which the executive abandons whenever it deems appropriate.

This doctrine has an internal logic consistent with the " witch hunt " rhetoric: if institutions are corrupt and used as political weapons, why submit to them? The argument circulates: rules only apply if they are applied fairly, and since they are not, Trump is justified in ignoring them. This is the reasoning of the gangster who claims persecution because the police arrested him. The sophistication of the packaging must not obscure the fundamental nature of the argument.

The 2026 articles of impeachment: the tally of new charges

Larson, Hegseth, and the cascade of impeachments

The 2026 impeachment wave is not limited to the president. Representative John Larson (D-Connecticut) filed articles of impeachment against Trump himself in April 2026, accusing him of having become " more unreasonable " and of endangering the lives and safety of Americans. He simultaneously called for the invocation of the 25th Amendment by the cabinet. But a dozen Democrats also filed articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accusing him of illegal actions causing civilian deaths in the Caribbean, obstructing congressional oversight, reckless management of sensitive military information, and conducting an unauthorized war against Iran.

This multiplication of impeachment articles paradoxically illustrates the dilution of their impact. When everything is impeachable, nothing truly is. The White House has an easy time denouncing a " partisan avalanche " when Democrats simultaneously target the president, a cabinet secretary, and other officials. The constitutional tool risks losing credibility through repeated invocation for every controversy, however legitimate.

The war against Iran and presidential war powers

The charge regarding the conduct of an unauthorized war against Iran raises a fundamental constitutional question that the " witch hunt " rhetoric tends to obscure: who decides to go to war in a democracy? Article I of the American Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 imposes limits on presidential military engagement without congressional authorization. The House voted in June 2026 to limit Trump's war powers regarding Iran — a resolution that Republicans had systematically rejected until then.

It is precisely this kind of overreach — the unilateral expansion of presidential powers in foreign and military policy — that Gene Healy's critique targets as more dangerous than symbolic impeachment. If Congress truly wanted to protect institutions, it would tackle undefined war powers, permanent states of emergency, and legislation by executive order. Reforms less spectacular than impeachment, but far more lasting.

What the victimization rhetoric tells us about the state of MAGA in 2026

MAGA as tribal identity, not political ideology

The persistence of the " witch hunt " rhetoric reveals something important about the deep nature of the MAGA movement in 2026. It is no longer an ideological platform — tax policy, immigration, trade — but a tribal identity built around collective victimization. Trump's supporters do not necessarily believe literally that the deep state is persecuting them, but they adhere to the feeling that the cultural and institutional elite despises them. The " witch hunt " is the most effective metaphor for naming that feeling.

This dynamic has precedents in the history of democracies in crisis. Victimization as the identity cement of a political movement is not a Trumpian invention — it is a classic rhetorical tool of authoritarian populisms. What is new is its institutionalization: the White House itself, with its official spokespersons, its press releases, its website funded by taxpayers, becomes the primary vector of the victimization narrative. The propaganda is no longer external to the state — it is the state.

The electoral base and the myth of the founding persecution

To understand why the " witch hunt " rhetoric resists all factual rebuttal, one must understand that it fulfills a quasi-religious function for the MAGA base. The persecution of the leader is the founding narrative that cements the community and gives it meaning. Facts that contradict this narrative do not weaken it — they are reinterpreted as further proof of the system's corruption. This is the logic of conspiracism: every refutation is a confirmation.

The impeachment expungement initiative must be read through this lens: it is designed not to rewrite history for historians, but to reinforce the conviction of believers. If Congress votes to "erase" the impeachments, even symbolically, the MAGA base will see in it confirmation that the impeachments were indeed unjust. And if Congress does not vote, this refusal will become further proof that the system is corrupt. In both cases, Trump wins the internal debate.

American institutions on the horizon of the midterms: between resilience and fragility

The institutional resistance mechanisms that are holding

Despite the attacks, certain institutional resistance mechanisms have held in 2025–2026. Federal judges have blocked several administration measures. Republican senators have resisted certain Trumpian initiatives — such as the anti-weaponization fund. Inspectors general have continued to carry out their mission despite the pressures. The independent press — Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan at the forefront — continues to produce reporting that exposes the reality behind the official narrative. These scattered acts of resistance are not spectacular, but they constitute the living tissue of democracy.

The Freedom House 2026 report documents deterioration, but also a remarkable civic resistance capacity. American civil society is not passive. Lawyers' unions, universities, civil rights organizations — all have been targeted by the administration, but none has capitulated. This resilience is the true stake of the November 2026 midterms: whoever controls the House will determine whether this resistance can organize itself at the institutional level or whether it will remain confined to civil society.

The November 2026 stakes: refound or deepen?

The November 2026 midterms loom as a major test of American institutional resilience. If Democrats retake the House, a third impeachment is likely — but its constitutional utility would remain limited without a massive Senate victory. If Republicans hold their majority, the impeachment expungement initiative will regain momentum, sending an extraordinarily negative signal about the system's capacity to self-correct.

In both scenarios, the " witch hunt " rhetoric will have gained something essential: it will have normalized the idea that constitutional procedures are political weapons, not governance mechanisms. And this normalization — regardless of the electoral outcome — is Trump's lasting victory over American institutions. It will outlast his term, whatever its outcome.

Conclusion: the inevitable and the necessary

What " witch hunt " truly reveals

The " witch hunt " rhetoric practiced by the White House in response to every impeachment procedure is not a legal defense. It is a political survival strategy operating on multiple levels simultaneously: it neutralizes factual debate, galvanizes the base, punishes Republican dissent, and — most fundamentally — discredits institutions by presenting them as partisan instruments. That these institutions are sometimes imperfect, that certain investigations contained procedural errors, does not validate this blanket disqualification. Democracies have the right — and the duty — to examine the exercise of executive power.

Trump is, in this analysis, both the problem and the revealer. He did not invent American polarization — he exploited and amplified it with undeniable political genius. Impeachment as a constitutional tool suffers from a design flaw that is not of his making: the two-thirds Senate threshold is too high to function in a hyperpolarized two-party system. It is that system that must be reformed. But this structural reform is precisely what the " witch hunt " rhetoric prevents from being discussed, dominating the media space as it does.

What the West must remember

The West — Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan — observes these American convulsions not as an exotic spectacle, but as the stress-test of a model that its members share and depend upon. Liberal institutions are not immutable facts — they are fragile constructions requiring active maintenance, conscious defense, and collective will to resist deformation. Institutional victimization rhetoric is not an American specificity: it is advancing in Hungary, Poland, Italy, and other weakened democracies. What Trump is doing in Washington is the prototype of a model being exported.

Defending the West means defending its institutions — including, and perhaps especially, when one of its own leaders attacks them from within. This is not an act of interference — it is an act of civilizational solidarity. The inevitable, here, is not the impeachment itself — it is the underlying question it raises: can a democracy survive a leader who denies the legitimacy of its own oversight mechanisms? The answer depends on all of us, not only on Americans.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

DNI Tulsi Gabbard — Official press release on declassified documents related to the 2019 impeachment — June 16, 2026

The Guardian — Trump asks Congress to symbolically expunge his two impeachments — June 12, 2026

Reason Magazine — Can you un-impeach a president? Constitutional analysis — June 22, 2026

Secondary sources

Mother Jones — Trump's " weaponization " claim is complete nonsense — David Corn — June 10, 2026

MindSite News — One month later: where do Trump's impeachment proceedings stand? — May 30, 2026

Washington Times — Jeffries: Democrats have ruled nothing out on impeachment if they retake Congress — June 14, 2026

Associated Press — Friction between Trump and Republican senators reaches a critical point — June 19, 2026

WLT Report — Senator Cornyn warns: if Republicans lose the House, Trump will be impeached a 3rd time — May 25, 2026