How did key swing-district representatives vote in the December 2025 impeachment?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A December 2025 House floor effort to impeach President Trump — a privileged resolution filed by Rep. Al Green — was tabled after Democratic leaders voted “present,” and media tallies show 23 House Democrats opposed the move while 47 voted “present,” with 140 voting to advance the resolution in an earlier related action [1] [2]. Reporting characterizes the vote as a political maneuver that split Democrats and left swing-district messaging and votes closely watched by both parties [1] [3].
1. What happened on the House floor: a short narrative
Rep. Al Green forced a floor vote on a resolution to impeach President Trump that alleged abuse of presidential power; the House voted to table the measure after Democratic leaders cast “present” ballots, effectively scuttling the snap impeachment push [1]. Coverage frames the outcome as a procedural defeat for Green’s effort even as some Democrats expressed support for holding a vote [1] [2].
2. The numbers that matter: who voted which way
Contemporaneous media reporting compiled a list showing 23 House Democrats ultimately voted against the impeachment effort and another 47 Democrats voted “present,” while other coverage notes a majority of House Democrats — 140 members — voted against tabling the resolution in an earlier action tied to impeachment efforts [2] [1]. Public roll-call records from June show prior tabling votes passed (yea 344 — nay 79) on similar motions earlier in 2025, underscoring repeated procedural battles [4].
3. Swing-district focus: why those members mattered
Multiple outlets highlighted that Democrats representing swing districts were under particular pressure and that some of those members sided with Republicans to table the impeachment effort or voted against advancing it, reflecting electoral calculus in competitive districts [3] [5]. Advocacy groups and pollsters emphasized swing-district public opinion as a central argument for and against pressing impeachment, signaling the political stakes for vulnerable incumbents [6] [7].
4. How different outlets framed the split
Conservative-leaning outlets framed Democratic defections or present votes as evidence that impeachment lacked broad party support and was politically unwise in swing areas [3] [5]. Pro-impeachment advocacy sites and some progressive outlets emphasized the 140 members who opposed tabling and urged pressure on lawmakers, pointing to polls they say show swing-district voters supporting impeachment [7] [6]. These competing frames underline an explicit political agenda on both sides: containment of the issue to avoid electoral risk versus pressing accountability regardless of near-term outcomes [3] [7].
5. What the official record shows and what’s absent
Congressional sources and roll-call databases document the procedural history of impeachment motions across 2025, including the June tabling vote and the formal text of H.Res.537, which alleges abuse of war powers by the president [4] [8]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, seat-by-seat roll call from the December move in the materials provided here; media summaries list aggregate counts [2] [1]. If you need the exact vote of a specific representative in December, the current reporting excerpts do not supply a full roll-call listing for that floor action [1] [2].
6. What this means politically: two competing interpretations
One interpretation sees the tabling as a pragmatic Democratic choice to avoid handing Republicans a campaign issue in swing districts, with vulnerable members voting or acting to blunt political damage [3] [5]. The opposing interpretation treats the forced vote and the 140 members who opposed tabling as evidence of growing appetite within parts of the Democratic caucus and activist networks to hold Trump accountable, citing polls and advocacy mobilization in swing districts [6] [7]. Both explanations are present in the reporting and reflect clear partisan incentives [3] [7].
7. Limitations and next steps for verification
My synthesis relies on the news accounts and advocacy materials provided; these sources give aggregate counts and political context but do not include a complete roll-call transcript for the December action in the clipped material here [2] [1]. To identify how individual swing-district representatives voted in December with certainty, consult the official House roll-call on clerk.house.gov or the full Congress.gov vote record for that specific floor motion; those documents are not fully reproduced in the current set of sources [4] [8].