Texas Democrat Al Green filed yet another impeachment resolution accusing President Trump of "high crimes and misdemeanors" over immigration enforcement, and his own party's leaders are once again refusing to back him up.
Green introduced the resolution on Monday, marking at least his fourth attempt to impeach Trump during the president's second term. The articles accuse the administration of permitting Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to violate Americans' First and Fourth Amendment rights through unlawful searches, seizures, arrests, excessive force, and racially targeted detention. Green's filing describes ICE and CBP as "quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces" and brands Trump an "abuser of Presidential power."
None of Green's prior resolutions gained traction. The pattern is now familiar, and the Democratic leadership's discomfort with it is growing harder to hide.
Green's impeachment campaign during Trump's second term began in May 2025 with H.Res. 415, titled "Impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors." The House Judiciary Committee received the referral. It went nowhere.
On June 24, Green tried again with H.Res. 537, which contained formal articles accusing Trump of abusing his presidential powers. The House voted to table it the same day he introduced it.
By December 11, Green was back with H.Res. 939, branding Trump an "abuser of Presidential power." The outcome of that resolution remains unclear, but the Monday filing confirms Green did not stop there. His current articles focus narrowly on immigration enforcement, alleging due process and equal protection violations and citing three deaths as evidence of federal overreach.
The resolution names Renée Good, 37, and Alex Pretti, 37, both U.S. citizens killed during encounters with federal immigration-enforcement personnel in Minneapolis, and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, an illegal immigrant fatally shot by an ICE agent in Houston. Green frames these cases as proof of a broader pattern of unjustified deadly force, though the specific circumstances of each incident remain largely undetailed in the filing as the Daily Mail reported.
Green's persistence has not won him allies in his own caucus. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to embrace the effort, saying impeachment "requires a comprehensive investigative process" and that the necessary investigative groundwork had not been done.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer was blunter. He urged Democrats to focus on congressional oversight instead of another impeachment push, telling colleagues:
"We saw that movie twice and it didn't work."
Gottheimer's reference was to Trump's two first-term impeachments, both of which passed the House but failed to produce a Senate conviction. The political cost of those efforts, particularly the second, rushed through in the final days of Trump's first term, left a mark on the party that its moderates have not forgotten.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, who led the second impeachment prosecution in 2021, has remained open to the idea in principle but wants a strong factual and legal case assembled first. That position puts him closer to Jeffries than to Green. As far back as February 2025, Pete Aguilar, then part of House Democratic leadership, made clear that impeachment was not an immediate priority for the caucus.
Green's trajectory within his own party has been rocky on other fronts as well. He lost his Texas primary runoff as part of a broader generational reckoning within the Democratic Party, raising questions about how much political capital he carries even among his own constituents.
Green is no newcomer to impeachment politics. He helped lay the groundwork for Trump's first impeachment in 2019, pushing the issue when Democratic leaders, including then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, actively resisted the idea. Pelosi and Hoyer argued at the time that investigations should proceed before any impeachment vote, a position that eventually gave way under pressure from the party's progressive wing.
That history makes the current dynamic familiar. Green pushes. Leadership stalls. The resolution dies quietly in committee or gets tabled on the floor. The cycle repeats.
What has changed is the political environment. Democrats are now in the minority in the House, which means Green's resolutions have even less chance of advancing than they did when his party held the gavel. The filings serve as political statements, not legislative vehicles, a distinction that appears lost on Green but not on the rest of his caucus.
Green's combative posture toward the Trump administration extends beyond impeachment. He clashed with DHS Secretary Mullin at a House hearing, calling the cabinet secretary a "racist" and telling him to "shut up", the kind of outburst that generates headlines but does little to build the bipartisan coalitions impeachment would require.
The broader Democratic strategy, according to reporting on the caucus, involves preparing to launch wide-ranging investigations into Trump and his administration if the party retakes the House. Impeachment remains a possible downstream outcome of that investigative work, but leadership has made clear it is not the starting point.
That framing puts Green's serial filings in an awkward position. Each new resolution forces Democrats to publicly distance themselves from impeachment at a moment when they would rather talk about oversight, policy contrasts, and the 2026 midterms. Green's resolutions do not embarrass Trump, they embarrass his own leadership.
The impeachment question has stirred passions well beyond Capitol Hill. An Air Force major was arrested on the Capitol steps after demanding Trump's impeachment, a reminder that the issue carries emotional weight among some opponents of the administration even as it lacks institutional support.
Meanwhile, impeachment as a tool has not been the exclusive province of Democrats. Rep. Andy Ogles filed impeachment articles against a federal judge who blocked Trump's TPS order on Somalis, illustrating that both parties have members willing to reach for the impeachment mechanism when they believe the other side has overstepped. The difference is that Ogles targeted a judge for blocking executive action, while Green targets the president for carrying it out.
Green's resolution accuses the administration of allowing constitutional violations in the name of immigration enforcement. The articles allege interference with speech and protest, unlawful searches and seizures, excessive force, and violations of due process and equal protection. Those are serious charges in any context. But filing charges and proving them are different things, and Green has not demonstrated that he has the evidence, the votes, or the support of his own party to do the latter.
Trump was impeached twice during his first term. Neither effort produced a Senate conviction. The political fallout from those episodes, particularly the perception among many voters that impeachment was used as a partisan weapon rather than a constitutional remedy, helped fuel Trump's political comeback. Green's serial filings risk reinforcing that very narrative.
At some point, a tactic that fails every time it is tried stops being a strategy and starts being a habit. Green's colleagues seem to understand that, even if he does not.