The College of Cardinals, if enough of them gather and demand his resignation. It's happened several times before, but not since the 12th century. A pope is the guardian of tradition, and the dogma of the Church, the Magesterium which has been passed on from generation to generation. It's also called the Deposit of the Faith (meaning all the accumulated traditions and teachings of the Church from Apostolic times. It is bad enough that much of the interpretations of VAtican II both the pastoral (not dogmatic) constitutions , as well as the experimentations/deviations/rupture in liturgy departed from the teachings of the Church, but when a Pope (Bergoglio) has continually taught contrary to, or supported agendas contrary to the teachings of the Church (regarding homosexuality, LGBTQ persons, transgenders/so called transsexuals, etc. among other things, then it is the right of the Cardinals to depose him. IN EFFECT, by deliberatly teaching error, that which is contrary to the Faith, any Pope (Bergoglio) would automatically depose himself for teaching heresy. Saint Thomas Aquinas stated that the Cardinals in that situation have a right to remove a pope, as did other later Church theologians, including Doctors of the Church. A pope can't depart completely from the Faith and support something totally the opposite (Bergoglio and blessing of the Pachamamma statue, 2019). etc. Even Cardinal Burke and others have stated that a Pope who by actions and teachings departs from the Faith and Tradition, he could be deposed.
Now, none of these VAtican II Cardinals will do that....they are all weaklings cowering under the shadow Bergoglio has cast over the Church, especially with his "Traditiones Custodes" rampage. But they could...........and should.

Nope. A Pope doesn't have blanket permission to do as he pleases. Of course, in this VAtican II Church, none of the CArdinals will stand up to Bergoglio, and he will do as he pleases. But that in itself is sick, for the faithful to allow for him to do so.
It sounds like a ridiculous comparison, but as a history teacher, (even though I'm only 28), I know that the the Middle Ages, there were several bad popes (8th and 9th centuries) who did whatever they pleased- had mistresses, illegit children, multiple wives taught heresy, etc- but were elected because they belonged to a certain powerful family who had the militia to back themselves up. It's like in Japan a daimyo (local governor) in the times of the Tokugawa Shogunate having his own small army of samurai to defend his territory and his honor and to enforce his laws in the name of the Shogun. But eventually, these bad early Medieval popes (before celibacy was mandatory, etc), were eventually deposed by the cardinals and electors. Cardinals didn't become the full electors of popes till the 11th century. Before that, the local people did, as well as powerful families. The guy from the strongest family won. Later that was seen as corrupt, so the College of Cardinals was instituted.
But no, just because Bergoglio is the highest authority in the Church doesn't mean he is unimpeachable. If he goes against Church teaching, teaches heresy, or repudiates time honored traditions of the Church and tries to invent something new and force it on people....but especially if he blatantly departs from the Faith and teaches heresy...not only can he be forces to resign/be impeached by the Cardinals, but he by his heretical teachings and actions has deposed himself, and therefore the faithful are not bound to obey him, or respect him as the legit Pope. By his teachings and actions against the Faith, he has forfeited that right.