Rep. Al Green is again forcing House Democrats into an awkward impeachment vote they have already rejected once this term, putting his colleagues on the record on a resolution even Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries moved to kill last time.
Green, the 79-year-old Texas progressive, introduced a privileged resolution on the House floor Monday accusing President Donald Trump of "current high crimes and misdemeanors" and calling him "a great threat to democracy and the Constitution." The procedural maneuver, a privileged resolution, compels the full chamber to vote within two legislative days, meaning House GOP leaders must bring it to the floor by the end of day Wednesday.
The stated basis for the resolution: federal immigration officers' killing of two American citizens during the ongoing crackdown on illegal immigration in U.S. cities. Green did not name the officers or the agency involved, and the resolution's specific allegations beyond that framing were not detailed in Fox News Digital's reporting.
What makes the move politically notable is not the resolution itself, it is the reaction from Green's own side of the aisle. Or rather, the lack of one.
This is not Green's first run at impeachment during Trump's current term. In June 2025, he introduced a similar effort. Jeffries and 127 other House Democrats, 128 in total, voted alongside Republicans to quash it. The minority leader has long demurred on impeachment, and nothing in the current reporting suggests his position has shifted.
Green's letter to colleagues framed the issue as urgent and moral, not strategic.
"To those who say, 'Wait until next year' and 'Buckle up' when the investigations start, I say: How many more lives must we lose, and how many more loved ones of victims have to plead for help before the self-evident evidence from videos and President Trump's own words compel us to act?"
He added that "the available overwhelming evidence sufficiently demonstrates that President Trump is unfit and dangerous to our democracy." Green did not specify which videos or presidential statements he was referencing.
The "wait until next year" language appears aimed directly at Democratic leaders who have signaled they are preparing investigations into the Trump administration and the president's circle if Democrats win the midterm elections in November. Green's argument, in effect, is that his party's leadership is shielding Trump from accountability now in favor of a political strategy that may never materialize.
Green has made himself one of the most visible antagonists of the Trump presidency, though his methods have drawn as much attention as his message. He was thrown out of both of Trump's addresses to a joint session of Congress during this term. At Trump's first address since returning to the White House, Green repeatedly waved his cane at the president and shouted while Trump spoke. At the State of the Union, he held up a sign reading "Black People Aren't Apes" before being removed again.
In November 2025, he joined protesters marching from Union Station to the Capitol under the banner "Remove the Regime."
None of it has moved his party's leadership closer to impeachment. If anything, the opposite has happened. Green lost his primary to a younger Democrat who campaigned on generational change, a signal from his own voters that the approach had run its course. The specific date of that primary and the name of his opponent were not reported.
The privileged resolution mechanism strips Democratic leaders of the ability to quietly bury the measure. Every member of the House will have to cast a recorded vote by Wednesday evening. For most Democrats, that means choosing between their progressive base, which wants confrontation, and a leadership strategy built around midterm investigations rather than impeachment proceedings that have no chance of succeeding in a Republican-controlled chamber.
Jeffries and his leadership team navigated this once before in June 2025, when they sided with Republicans to table the effort. They will almost certainly do so again. But every forced vote creates a clip, a mailer, and a primary challenge talking point, aimed not at Republicans, but at Democrats who vote to set the resolution aside.
Green's resolution does not identify the specific federal agency whose officers allegedly killed two U.S. citizens, nor does it provide names or circumstances of those incidents. The characterization comes from Green's own text, not from an independent investigation cited in the resolution. Those gaps matter when the charge is impeachment, a constitutional mechanism that historically demands a factual record strong enough to justify removing a sitting president.
The broader Democratic caucus appears to agree, at least for now, that Green's evidence does not meet that bar. Their votes in June said so plainly. Wednesday's vote will likely say it again.
When your own party votes to kill your impeachment resolution twice in the same term, the problem is not the president, it is the case.
