Which Democratic House members opposed impeachment and what explanations did they give?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Twenty-three House Democrats voted to table (kill) Rep. Al Green’s December 11, 2025, impeachment resolution against President Trump; another 47 Democrats voted “present,” and the motion to table passed 237–140 [1] [2]. Democratic leaders framed their choice to avoid an outright “no” as a critique of process — saying impeachment requires a comprehensive investigation that the Republican majority had not conducted — while rank‑and‑file Democrats gave a mix of strategic, electoral and institutional explanations [3] [4] [1].
1. Who broke with the party — and how many votes that was
A bipartisan coalition of 237 members voted to table Rep. Al Green’s privileged impeachment resolution; that coalition included 214 Republicans and 23 Democrats who voted “yes” to table the measure, while 47 Democrats cast “present” votes [1] [2]. Reporting names the three senior Democrats — Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar — among those who voted present rather than opposing the motion outright [5] [2].
2. Leadership’s public line: process, not principle
Democratic leaders told reporters and issued statements arguing the problem was procedural: impeachment “requires a comprehensive investigative process” that the Republican majority had not undertaken, so leadership declined to register an outright “no” and instead directed many to vote “present” while condemning the GOP’s priorities [3] [4]. That framing is explicit in news accounts citing Jeffries and other top Democrats who emphasized the gravity of impeachment and the lack of a formal inquiry by the majority [3] [4].
3. Why 23 Democrats voted to kill the motion
Multiple outlets report those Democrats who voted with Republicans did so for practical and political reasons: many moderates view these one‑off impeachment pushes as futile in a Republican‑controlled House and a distraction from messaging on bread‑and‑butter issues ahead of midterms; others were reportedly worried about the optics for vulnerable incumbents or had not been persuaded that the procedural standards for impeachment had been met [1] [6] [7]. Axios describes anger and frustration inside the caucus — lawmakers who “despise” the repeated use of impeachment as a political tool but don’t want to appear to defend the president [1].
4. The “present” votes: a deliberate middle ground
Forty‑seven Democrats voted “present,” a move covered widely as intentional: it let members avoid an affirmative vote to table — which would be framed as blocking impeachment — while also not endorsing a rushed impeachment push that leadership said lacked investigation [2] [4]. Fox News and The Independent both note Democratic leaders and several senior Democrats cast “present” votes, underscoring caucus concern about precedent and strategic consequences [5] [4].
5. Internal tensions: activists vs. centrists
Reporting highlights a clear split between progressive activists pushing for accountability and moderates prioritizing electoral calculus. NBC and Salon frame the dispute as recurring and toxic: rank‑and‑file progressives have repeatedly forced votes that leadership and many centrists view as “pointless distractions,” while organizers and a segment of the base demand more aggressive action [6] [8]. Axios quotes anonymous senior Democrats who said the votes “put us in a difficult position,” reflecting intra‑party friction [1].
6. Historical context and political calculation
News outlets place the episode in a pattern: Democrats previously impeached Trump twice when they held the House; since Republicans control Congress now, any Democratic impeachment effort is likely to fail and risk fueling Republican campaign messages that Democrats are obsessed with impeachment rather than governance [2] [1]. Media accounts stress that leaders fear a repeat of damaging soundbites and political blowback if the caucus appears divided [7].
7. Limitations in available reporting
Available sources do not list the full roll call names of the 23 Democrats who voted “yes” on the motion to table in a single consolidated list within the snippets provided here; they do, however, provide the totals and identify several named actors and leadership behavior [1] [2]. Detailed floor statements by individual Democratic defectors explaining their votes are not included in these excerpts; outlets summarize motives (strategic, procedural, electoral) rather than quoting an exhaustive set of lawmakers [1] [6].
8. Bottom line: strategy over unanimity
The episode shows a Democratic caucus choosing strategy over unanimity: leaders and many members rejected the motion to proceed without an investigation, a group of Democrats voted with Republicans to table the resolution out of political or pragmatic concerns, and a sizable cohort tried to occupy the middle by voting “present.” Coverage across The Independent, Axios, NBC, Fox and others converges on the same core facts and competing rationales: procedural objections, fear of futile theater, and grassroots pressure for accountability [4] [1] [6] [5].