Texas Democrat Al Green launched yet another attempt to impeach President Donald Trump on Monday, his fourth such effort of Trump's second term, only to find the same Democratic leadership that sidelined his prior resolutions still unwilling to embrace the push.
Green's latest articles of impeachment accuse Trump of "high crimes and misdemeanors" tied to the administration's immigration-enforcement operations, alleging that ICE and CBP officers have violated Americans' First and Fourth Amendment rights through unlawful searches, racially targeted arrests, excessive force, and interference with speech and protest. The resolution names three specific cases: the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, both 37-year-old U.S. citizens killed during encounters with federal immigration-enforcement personnel in Minneapolis, and the fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, an illegal immigrant, by an ICE agent in Houston.
Green's resolution argues that Trump, as head of the executive branch, cannot distance himself from the conduct of federal officers operating under his authority, and that his actions violate his constitutional oath. In the resolution's language, Green describes ICE and CBP as "quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces."
It is a serious accusation. It is also, by now, a familiar one. And the congressman's own caucus has given every signal that it is going nowhere.
Green's impeachment campaign during Trump's second term began in May 2025 with H.Res. 415, a resolution titled "Impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors." The House Judiciary Committee received the referral. Nothing happened after that.
One month later, on June 24, Green escalated. H.Res. 537 contained actual articles of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing the powers of his presidency. The House voted to table it the same day, a procedural move that shelved the effort without debate.
By December 11, Green was back with H.Res. 939, which branded Trump an "abuser of Presidential power" and argued that leaving him in office would allow him to keep "undermining democracy and inciting violence." The Daily Mail reported no further action on that resolution either.
Monday's filing, at least Green's third of Trump's second term by the source's count, though four resolutions are documented, follows the same arc. Green claims he helped lay the groundwork for Trump's first impeachment in 2019, and he appears determined to keep forcing the question regardless of whether anyone else in his party is willing to answer it.
The pattern is not new. During Trump's first term, then-House Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer resisted Green's impeachment pushes, arguing that investigations should be allowed to proceed before the party moved on removal. Trump was ultimately impeached twice by the House during that term. Neither impeachment resulted in removal by the Senate.
The second-term dynamic has been no different. In February 2025, Pete Aguilar, then part of House Democratic leadership, made clear that impeachment was not an immediate priority for the caucus. Later that year, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to fully embrace Green's effort.
Jeffries framed his reluctance in procedural terms, saying impeachment "requires a comprehensive investigative process" and that the necessary investigative work had not been done. The message was polite but unmistakable: Green was out ahead of where leadership wanted to be.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer was blunter.
"We saw that movie twice and it didn't work."
Gottheimer urged Democrats to focus on congressional oversight rather than another impeachment effort, a position that reflects the broader caucus calculation. Democratic leaders have signaled they are preparing to launch wide-ranging investigations into Trump and his administration if they retake the House, with impeachment as a potential option only if those investigations produce a strong enough case.
Rep. Jamie Raskin has remained open to impeachment in principle but wants a factual and legal case built first, a stance that, while more sympathetic to Green's aims, still amounts to "not yet."
The new resolution centers its constitutional argument on specific incidents. Green alleges that Trump's immigration-enforcement apparatus has engaged in unjustified detention, unjustified uses of deadly force, and violations of due process and equal protection.
The three cases named in the filing carry real weight as human stories. Renée Good and Alex Pretti, both 37-year-old American citizens, were killed during encounters involving federal immigration-enforcement personnel in Minneapolis. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Houston.
But the resolution, as described in available reporting, does not detail the specific circumstances of any of these deaths, what preceded the encounters, what level of force was used, or what investigations have concluded. Those gaps matter. An impeachment article built on individual enforcement incidents needs to establish not just that people died, but that the deaths resulted from unlawful orders or policies traceable to the president. Green's resolution asserts that Trump cannot distance himself from executive-branch conduct under his authority. That is a constitutional argument, not a factual finding.
Whether Green has the evidence to bridge that gap is an open question, one his own party's leaders have, so far, answered by declining to act.
Green's record on impeachment is nothing if not consistent. He has filed resolution after resolution, session after session, regardless of whether his leadership supports him, regardless of whether the votes exist, and regardless of whether the prior attempt gained a single inch of ground. He frames each filing as a matter of constitutional duty. His critics within the Democratic caucus frame it as a strategic misfire that hands Republicans a talking point without producing results.
Both assessments can be true at the same time. But the political reality is plain. Republicans control the House. Democratic leadership has not endorsed the effort. No co-sponsors are identified in the reporting. And the two prior impeachments of Trump during his first term, which had the full weight of a Democratic majority behind them, ended in Senate acquittals both times.
Green's resolution alleges that Trump's immigration-enforcement policies amount to constitutional violations serious enough to warrant removal from office. That is a claim that demands evidence, process, and votes. Green has the claim. He does not appear to have the rest.
Filing impeachment articles that your own party won't support doesn't hold a president accountable. It lets him point to the effort and call it proof that the opposition has nothing serious to offer.
