December 2025 impeachment vote
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The House voted to table Rep. Al Green’s December effort to impeach President Donald J. Trump; official tallies show the motion to table passed by wide margins (e.g., 344–79 on the Clerk roll) and alternative counts reported 237–140 with 47 “present” votes in Green’s statement [1][2]. Reporting and statements emphasize that Democratic leaders largely refused to back Green’s snap impeachment push, with many voting “present” or opposing tabling to avoid advancing the measure [3][4].
1. What happened on the floor: a forced vote that failed
Rep. Al Green filed H.Res.939/H.Res.537 to impeach President Trump and forced a floor vote; House Republicans moved to “table” (kill) the resolution and the motion to table passed decisively, with official Clerk records showing a yea–nay result of 344–79 on the motion to table [5][1]. Multiple outlets and Green’s office frame the outcome differently—Green’s release cites a 237–140 tabling result with 47 present votes, reflecting the complex vote tallies and how outlets reported party-line splits [2][6].
2. Democratic leadership’s tactical split: present votes, political calculation
Top House Democrats — including Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar — announced they would vote “present,” a tactic leaders used to avoid directly joining Republicans in killing the effort while signaling reluctance to launch an immediate impeachment drive [3]. Reporters note Democratic anger and unease: some members described Green’s unilateral move as both constitutionally serious and politically premature, with leadership prioritizing investigations and process over a snap impeachment push [4][7].
3. Numbers and divergent tallies: why counts look different in outlets
News organizations reported varying tallies: Newsweek and The Daily Signal highlight that 23 Democrats voted with Republicans to table and dozens voted present, while the Clerk’s roll call lists 344 yeas and 79 nays on the motion to table [6][8][1]. Green’s own statement cites a 237–140 tabling with 47 present — a discrepancy driven by which specific resolution number, which roll call interpretation, and how outlets summarized “table” vs. final procedural outcomes [2][1].
4. The charge and context: what Green alleged
Green’s resolution accused the president of abusing power by authorizing military strikes against Iran without Congress’s authorization — a single-article impeachment alleging usurpation of Congress’s war powers [9][5]. AP and other reporters described the vote as a response to Trump’s strikes on Iranian facilities and as a demonstration of congressional unease over executive military action [10].
5. Political stakes: why Democrats balked and Republicans moved to kill it
Democratic leaders argued impeachment is “sacred” and should follow investigations; many feared a snap impeachment would be politically risky and unlikely to advance in a Republican-controlled Congress or to result in Senate conviction [3][11]. Republicans swiftly used the motion to table to prevent even debate, framing the move as shutting down what they called a political stunt — a point underscored by the strong yea vote to table [4][1].
6. Competing narratives and media frames
Coverage diverges: outlets such as Axios emphasize Democrats’ frustration that their own members helped quash the vote and describe emotional floor exchanges, while conservative and partisan outlets stress the increased number of Democrats willing to back an impeachment vote compared with earlier contests [4][8]. Green framed the effort as a constitutional duty to check unilateral military action; leadership framed the decision as prudential politics and process [5][3].
7. What this vote means procedurally and politically
Procedurally, tabling the resolution halts this particular impeachment effort unless reintroduced; it does not foreclose future proceedings if new evidence or broader support emerges [1][9]. Politically, the episode exposed fractures inside the Democratic caucus between members urging immediate accountability and leadership prioritizing longer investigations and electoral calculus [4][7].
8. Limits of available reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources do not mention whether a unified, formal House investigative referral into the Iran strikes is underway beyond Green’s move, nor do they provide a definitive reconciliation of every numerical discrepancy among outlets [2][1]. The public record shows split messaging and differing tallies; readers should treat single-number headlines with caution and consult the Clerk’s roll for the formal record [1].
Final note: the Clerk’s roll call and official congressional releases provide the primary numerical record [1][2]. Reporting reflects both Green’s constitutional argument and Democratic leaders’ strategic objections; both frames are present in the sources cited here [5][3].