Congressional Democrats want President Donald Trump out of the White House. They just cannot agree on how to do it, or whether any of their options stand a chance of working.
More than five dozen House Democrats have now called for Trump's impeachment. A handful of senators have joined them. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promoted a caucus-wide briefing on the 25th Amendment led by Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland. And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing for yet another war powers resolution vote to rein in the president's authorities in Iran.
The result is not a unified opposition. It is a party pulling in three directions at once, with no path to success on any of them, and some Democrats openly admitting as much.
The push to impeach Trump has been loud but fruitless. Late last year, Rep. Al Green of Texas forced floor votes on two articles of impeachment. The effort collapsed when nearly two dozen Democrats joined Republicans to defeat it. That bipartisan rejection should have been a signal. It was not.
Last week, Rep. John Larson of Connecticut filed 13 articles of impeachment against Trump, Fox News Digital reported. Larson cited the president's military intervention in Venezuela, the deployment of National Guard troops to cities across the country, and his executive order to curtail birthright citizenship, among other charges.
Thirteen articles. That is not a focused legal case. That is a wish list, and it faces the same arithmetic problem Green's effort did. Formal impeachment proceedings are not going to begin under House Speaker Mike Johnson. Even if they did, conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Democrats do not have it.
Some Democrats know this. Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania said at a news conference last week that impeachment was a dead end right now.
"I don't think it is the best use of our time. Let us get into the majority, let us get a Senate majority and then hold this president to account."
That is an honest assessment. It is also an admission that the impeachment talk is political theater, messaging dressed up as a constitutional remedy. Dean's candor drew an immediate correction from within leadership ranks. Rep. Sara Jacobs of California, a member of House Democratic leadership, followed Dean's remarks by insisting that "all options should be on the table."
The gap between Dean's realism and Jacobs's open-ended posture captures the fracture. One wing wants to campaign its way back to power. The other wants to keep the removal drumbeat going, regardless of whether it leads anywhere.
If impeachment is a long shot, invoking the 25th Amendment is something closer to fiction. The amendment has never been used to remove a sitting president in nearly 60 years since it was ratified. It would require Vice President JD Vance, a majority of Trump's Cabinet, and two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to align against the president.
There is no universe in which that happens. Democrats know it. Yet Jeffries still promoted a caucus-wide briefing on the amendment led by Raskin last week, and several senators, including Andy Kim of New Jersey, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Ron Wyden of Oregon, have publicly called for either the 25th Amendment or impeachment.
Sen. Kim put it bluntly. "I mean, he's unfit for office," Kim told reporters. "I think the 25th Amendment, and if not, then impeachment."
But Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island offered a far more sober read. He called removing Trump via the 25th Amendment "not realistic right now, given his oddball Cabinet of sycophants and eccentrics."
Whitehouse's conclusion was blunt: "We're going to have to buckle down and win this the old-fashioned way." That means elections. It also means the 25th Amendment conversation is, at best, a messaging exercise, and at worst, a distraction from the kind of sustained political work that might actually change the balance of power.
The broader dysfunction within the Democratic caucus is not limited to removal strategy. Sen. Cory Booker has publicly admitted that Democrats "failed this moment" and demanded new party leadership, a sign that the frustration runs deeper than any single policy fight.
While House Democrats chase impeachment and the 25th Amendment, Schumer has charted a different course. The Senate minority leader stopped short of calling for either remedy. Instead, he is pushing for another war powers resolution vote this week, aimed at limiting Trump's military authority in Iran.
Schumer framed the effort in bipartisan terms, saying, "No president, Democrat or Republican, should take this country to war alone, not now, not ever. Republicans will once again have the opportunity to join Democrats and end this reckless war of choice."
He also declared that "Congress must reassert its authority, especially at this dangerous moment." The framing is deliberate. By focusing on war powers rather than removal, Schumer avoids the political risks of impeachment talk while still positioning himself as a check on the administration.
But Schumer's own standing within the party is shaky. His political position has weakened considerably, and the war powers vote may be as much about shoring up his own relevance as about restraining the president.
The question is whether Republicans will play along. Previous war powers votes have drawn some GOP support, but the political dynamics around Iran have shifted. Schumer is betting that enough Republicans feel uneasy about executive war-making to cross the aisle. That bet has not paid off consistently.
Jeffries, for his part, has tried to straddle the divide. In a Dear Colleague letter, the House minority leader wrote: "Shockingly, Donald Trump threatened to escalate his war of choice in a profane Easter Sunday rant and to eradicate an entire civilization."
He added: "We will continue to unleash maximum pressure on Republicans to put patriotic duty over party loyalty and join Democrats in stopping the madness."
That language encourages the removal conversation without formally endorsing it. Jeffries promoted Raskin's 25th Amendment briefing. He has not, however, called for impeachment proceedings himself. The posture lets him keep the base energized without owning a strategy that has no chance of success.
It is a familiar play from Democratic leadership: keep every option "on the table" while committing to none of them. The base hears defiance. The swing voters hear nothing concrete. And nothing changes.
Meanwhile, Democratic Senate candidates are distancing themselves from Schumer as a leadership revolt grows, suggesting the party's internal tensions extend well beyond the House caucus.
What emerges from all of this is a Democratic Party that is angry, divided, and strategically adrift. The impeachment wing files articles that will never reach the floor. The 25th Amendment wing promotes a mechanism that requires the cooperation of the very people they are trying to remove. And the war powers wing settles for procedural votes that may generate headlines but will not change the balance of power.
The honest voices in the caucus, Dean, Whitehouse, are saying what the rest will not: there is no shortcut. The only way Democrats regain power is through elections. Every hour spent on performative removal efforts is an hour not spent making the case to voters.
The deeper problem is one of leadership. Senate Democrats have quietly weighed replacing Schumer as frustration mounts over strategy and spending fights, and the House caucus is no more unified. When a party cannot agree on whether to impeach, invoke the 25th Amendment, or simply wait for the next election, it is not offering an alternative. It is offering noise.
And noise, no matter how loud, does not win back a single seat.
