Rep. Al Green has mounted another dramatic bid to oust President Donald Trump, a move that puts Democrats in a delicate position as the fall midterm campaign season begins to intensify.
On Monday, Green introduced a resolution accusing Trump of committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” tied to his administration’s immigration enforcement policies.
The resolution does not appear to be part of a coordinated Democratic impeachment strategy, underscoring the divide between Green’s forceful stance and party leaders who have long insisted that any impeachment effort must be grounded in a wider investigative process.
That tension has surfaced before. During Trump’s first term, then-House Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer pushed back against Green’s impeachment efforts, saying investigations needed time to unfold.
A similar pattern emerged in Trump’s second term. In February 2025, Pete Aguilar, who was then serving in House Democratic leadership, said impeachment was not an immediate focus for the party.
Later in the year, Hakeem Jeffries and other senior Democrats again stopped short of endorsing Green’s push. Jeffries said impeachment “requires a comprehensive investigative process” and argued that the necessary groundwork had not yet been completed.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer has also expressed doubts about pursuing another impeachment of Trump, remarking, “We saw that movie twice and it didn’t work,” while encouraging Democrats to prioritize congressional oversight instead.
Representative Al Green filed articles of impeachment against President Trump on Monday, alleging that ICE and CBP have been used in ways that interfere with freedom of speech.
Green accused the administration of permitting unlawful searches, seizures and arrests, as well as excessive uses of force by immigration-enforcement officers
Among the most prominent cases cited by Green of deaths by ICE agents include Renée Good and Alex Pretti, both 37-year-old US citizens who were killed during encounters involving federal immigration-enforcement personnel in Minneapolis
Jamie Raskin, meanwhile, has remained open to impeachment but wants a strong factual and legal case built first.
The divide is about strategy. Green pushes for immediate action whenever he believes Trump has crossed a constitutional line, while Democratic leadership favors investigations, evidence-gathering and a coordinated approach.
That could matter enormously if Democrats retake the House. They are preparing to launch broad investigations into Trump and his administration, with impeachment becoming an option if those investigations produce a case for it.
Green, however, is once again moving ahead on his own.
Monday’s articles argue that Trump’s conduct violates his constitutional oath, and accuse his administration of allowing ICE and CBP to trample Americans’ constitutional rights.
Green alleges violations of the First and Fourth Amendments: interference with speech and protest, unlawful searches, seizures and arrests, excessive force, and violations of due process and equal protection. He describes ICE and CBP as ‘quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces.’
The Texas Democrat’s argument is that Washington’s authority to enforce immigration law does not give it license to ignore constitutional protections. He claims enforcement has involved racially targeted arrests, unjustified detention and unjustified uses of deadly force — not disputed policy, he says, but potential constitutional violations for which the president must be held responsible.
Among the cases he cites are the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, both 37-year-old US citizens killed during encounters with federal immigration-enforcement personnel in Minneapolis, which Green holds up as examples of excessive or unconstitutional force. He also points to the fatal shooting by an ICE agent of illegal migrant Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston.
Because Trump controls the executive branch and sets its immigration-enforcement policies, Green argues, the president cannot distance himself from what federal agencies do under his authority. Allowing or directing unconstitutional conduct, in Green’s view, is fundamentally incompatible with the presidential oath and potentially rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
Monday’s filing is far from Green’s first attempt. It is at least his third of Trump’s second term, part of a years-long campaign to remove him from office.
In May 2025, Green introduced H.Res. 415, titled ‘Impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and went no further.
Weeks later, on June 24, he was back with H.Res. 537, which contained actual Articles of Impeachment accusing Trump of abusing the powers of his presidency. The House voted to table it the same day.
On December 11, Green introduced H.Res. 939, branding Trump an ‘abuser of Presidential power’ and arguing that leaving him in office would allow him to keep undermining democracy and inciting violence.
Green has said he helped lay the groundwork for Trump’s first impeachment in 2019. Trump was impeached twice by the House during his first presidency, though neither impeachment resulted in his removal by the Senate.
Now Green is back again – putting Democrats in the familiar position of deciding whether to embrace his latest effort or keep their powder dry for a broader, leadership-driven strategy against Trump.
