Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat who already lost his primary and will leave Congress in January, filed another impeachment resolution against President Trump on Monday, his latest in a long string of failed attempts that even his own party has repeatedly refused to support.
Green's new resolution, designated H.Res. 1486, accuses Trump of abusing presidential power by directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection in ways the outgoing congressman characterizes as unconstitutional. The filing lands with Republicans holding the majority in both chambers, making it dead on arrival by any practical measure. Green himself acknowledged as much in a letter to the president accompanying the resolution.
Fox News Digital reported that the White House and the Department of Homeland Security both issued sharp responses on Tuesday, with DHS calling the allegations "unequivocally FALSE" and the White House accusing Green of endangering the officers he claims to be protecting the public from.
In his letter to Trump, Green made no pretense that the resolution would advance. He wrote that he expected defenders to point out the obvious: the House will not impeach, and even if it did, the Senate would not convict.
"Mr. President, I am well aware of the fact that you will be defended by persons who will say, 'The House won't impeach, and if it did, the Senate won't convict.' Sir, my response is that articles of impeachment that are not approved by Congress can express on-the-record disapproval of presidential actions and demonstrate that there are some of us watching and willing to act."
That framing, impeachment as a press release rather than a constitutional remedy, captures the nature of the exercise. Green has served in the House since 2005 and has filed impeachment resolutions against Trump multiple times across both of his terms in the White House. None has succeeded. Trump was impeached twice during his first term by a Democrat-controlled House, and the Senate declined to convict both times. The second Senate vote came after Trump had already left office.
Green's track record on this front is consistent, and consistently unsuccessful. In December 2017, a bipartisan group of 364 House members voted to table one of his impeachment motions, with Democratic leaders at the time opposing the push over fears it would hurt the party in the 2018 midterm elections. Only 58 Democrats voted to move forward.
More recently, the House voted 344-79 in June to block a Green-led impeachment inquiry effort, with 128 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition, the Washington Examiner reported. A second attempt later in 2025 was shelved 237-140, with 47 Democrats voting "present" rather than backing it outright, according to the AP.
The pattern is unmistakable. Green keeps filing. His colleagues, including members of his own party, keep declining to follow.
The new resolution focuses specifically on immigration enforcement. It accuses Trump of violating Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, the oath of office, by allegedly directing ICE and CBP to act as, in the resolution's words, "vicious, quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces" that operate with "anonymity and secrecy."
The document names four individuals, Renée Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, whom the resolution alleges were killed by ICE or CBP. It does not provide details about the circumstances of those deaths, and the primary reporting does not independently verify the allegations. The resolution characterizes these as "unjustified killings" carried out "with impunity."
Green has not been shy about confrontational rhetoric toward DHS leadership during his final months in office. His resolution goes further, accusing the administration of "brazenly and wantonly devolving the United States democratic republic into an authoritarian regime."
Those are the resolution's own words, not established facts. And they drew a forceful response from the administration.
White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis called the resolution harmful to the officers it purports to be about. She pointed to what she described as escalating threats against law enforcement.
"This type of garbage is contributing to our law enforcement officers facing a more than 1,300% increase in assaults against them. The brave men and women of ICE and CBP put their lives on the line to arrest murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists. Al Green should be thanking President Trump and our law enforcement for delivering the largest decrease in violent crime in American history."
DHS issued a longer statement through an unnamed spokesperson that matched the White House's tone. The spokesperson called the allegations "unequivocally FALSE" and dismissed Green's record in a single line: "The only things more inconsequential than Rep. Green's impeachment resolutions are his eleven terms in Congress."
The DHS statement cited specific figures: a more than 1,300 percent increase in assaults against officers, a 3,300 percent increase in vehicle attacks, and an 8,000 percent increase in death threats. The statement did not specify the timeframe or baseline for those percentages, leaving open questions about how the figures were calculated.
DHS also defended ICE's enforcement record, claiming that nearly 70 percent of ICE arrests involve illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of a crime in the United States. The spokesperson said there are no arrest quotas, directly contradicting the resolution's "quota-driven" characterization, and stated that officers "are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations."
Green is not just filing a long-shot resolution. He is filing it as a lame duck. He lost his Democratic primary runoff in May to Rep. Christian Menefee, ending a congressional career that stretches back more than two decades.
That primary loss fits a broader pattern of veteran Democrats being replaced by younger challengers. Green is not the only long-serving House Democrat to lose a primary recently, similar generational turnover has reshaped other Democratic districts as well.
With his seat gone and no political future to protect, Green's filing carries no risk for him and no consequence for anyone else. Just The News noted that Green introduced impeachment articles on August 24, 2026, and that none of his prior attempts have gained enough support to advance in the House.
Green himself has framed his repeated impeachment efforts not as legislative strategy but as moral witness. In 2017, he told colleagues that the effort was "not about Democrats" but "about democracy." The resolution's language has grown more heated over the years, but the result has stayed the same.
His earlier impeachment filings left Democratic leadership scrambling to distance itself from the effort. This time, with Green already on his way out, there is less scrambling required. The resolution will not receive a vote. It will not receive a committee hearing. It exists, as Green himself admitted, as an "on-the-record" statement, a protest lodged from the floor of a building he will soon vacate.
Several claims in the resolution and in the administration's response remain unverified in the available reporting. The resolution names four individuals it says were killed by ICE or CBP but provides no details about the incidents. Fox News Digital reached out to both agencies on Tuesday; neither response was reported.
The DHS statistics on assaults, vehicle attacks, and death threats against officers lack a stated baseline or timeframe. The White House claim of "the largest decrease in violent crime in American history" is similarly unattributed to any specific data set or study. And the DHS claim that nearly 70 percent of ICE arrests involve individuals charged with or convicted of a crime does not cite a source or methodology.
None of those gaps change the political reality. Green's resolution has no path forward. Republicans control the House. Democrats have repeatedly refused to support his impeachment efforts even when they held the majority. The filing is a political statement from a congressman whose constituents already chose his replacement.
When a departing congressman files a resolution he knows will fail, in a chamber he knows will ignore it, against a president his own party declined to impeach when it had the votes, that is not a constitutional check on power. That is a man writing his own farewell letter and stamping it with a House resolution number.