What specific evidence do H.Res.537 and H.Res.939 cite and how has it been evaluated by congressional committees?
Executive summary
Two separate 119th‑Congress impeachment resolutions—H.Res.537 (sponsored by Rep. Al Green) and H.Res.939—allege that President Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” by abusing presidential power, including unauthorized use of force and other constitutional violations; the text of each resolution itself supplies the primary “evidence” cited, and congressional committees have so far evaluated that material largely through referral and internal procedural steps rather than through a full investigative record or public hearings in the sources reviewed [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What the resolutions actually say — the evidence is in the text
H.Res.537 is filed as an impeachment resolution accusing President Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors; the Library of Congress summary and the resolution text identify the measure as one to impeach the President [3] [1]. H.Res.939’s published text likewise frames its articles around alleged abuses of presidential power, including claims that the President ordered unilateral military actions (citing a June 21, 2025 announcement of “successful” attacks on Iranian nuclear sites on his social media account) and failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of force [4] [2]. Those textual allegations are presented within the resolutions themselves as the factual predicates for impeachment rather than as citations to independent investigative reports [4] [2].
2. Specific factual assertions invoked in H.Res.939
H.Res.939’s text explicitly alleges that the President announced attacks on Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan, that congressional leaders were not appropriately briefed, and that the asserted military action was undertaken without prior authorization and without an imminent threat to the United States—claims the resolution uses to characterize the conduct as an abuse of power and a usurpation of Congress’s war powers [4] [2]. The resolution further links that conduct to broader accusations—alleged calls for impeachment of judges, denial of due process, and behavior said to “devolve American democracy into authoritarianism”—all laid out in the document’s articles [4].
3. How H.Res.537 frames its case and where its “evidence” comes from
H.Res.537 as submitted by Rep. Green appears similarly structured: the resolution’s own prose catalogues alleged misconduct as the basis for impeachment and was formally referred to the House Judiciary Committee before being laid on the table, making the resolution text the immediate source of cited facts in the public record provided [1] [6]. Public summaries on Congress.gov and tracking services describe the resolution’s purpose but do not attach an independent evidentiary appendix in the material provided here [3] [7].
4. Committee handling and evaluation — procedural referral, limited public investigation in available records
Both resolutions were referred to committee: H.Res.537 was referred to the Judiciary Committee and laid on the table [1], while H.Res.939’s committee assignments and any activity are logged on Congress.gov, which lists committees, subcommittees and links to reports where applicable [5]. The source material available for this analysis does not show the committees producing a public, sustained investigative record—no attached committee reports or transcripts of hearings are present in the provided snippets—so the primary evaluative act visible is referral and standard committee processing rather than documented findings based on subpoenas or public hearings [5] [2].
5. Political and institutional pushback about process and evidence standards
House Democratic leadership and members publicly urged a more deliberative investigative process before moving to floor votes, arguing that impeachment traditionally follows comprehensive investigation, document review, subpoenas, and hearings; Congressman Jeffries’ and Congresswoman McCollum’s statements emphasize the expectation of a formal inquiry and an evidentiary record to “produce the evidence” that would support impeachment—criticisms that suggest the resolutions’ textual allegations have not been vetted through the full investigative mechanics described by those officials [8] [9].
6. What is missing from the available public record and why it matters
The sources examined show the resolutions’ allegations and their committee referrals, but do not include committee reports, witnesses, or subpoena records that would convert the resolutions’ textual claims into documented evidentiary findings; therefore, assessment of the factual strength of the allegations depends on further committee actions or external investigations beyond the published bill texts and summaries cited here [5] [2] [4].