Which House members have introduced or supported impeachment articles against Trump since his second-term inauguration, and what were their arguments?
Executive summary
Since President Trump’s second-term inauguration in 2025, multiple House Democrats have formally introduced articles of impeachment and a sizable bloc of House members have signaled support by voting to advance at least one of those resolutions; the most prominent sponsors are Rep. Shri Thanedar (D–Mich.) and Rep. Al Green (D–Tex.), who advanced competing rationales rooted in alleged constitutional abuse, corruption, obstruction, and threats to the judiciary [1] [2] [3]. Those efforts produced a December 2025 floor moment in which 140 House members rejected tabling Green’s resolution—demonstrating substantive, if politically limited, backing amid Democratic ambivalence and Republican control of Congress [4] [5].
1. Who introduced articles: Thanedar and Green led the second‑term efforts
Representative Shri Thanedar publicly filed a seven‑article impeachment resolution in April 2025 framing Trump’s conduct as “a sweeping abuse of power” that includes obstruction of justice, bribery, corruption, usurpation of power and other constitutional violations tied to consolidation of power and personal finances, according to Thanedar’s office and press coverage [2] [1]. Representative Al Green also filed formal articles later in 2025—culminating in a December 10 filing and a privileged motion that forced a House vote—presenting a separate set of articles alleging abuse of power, incitement of violence, and that Trump’s speech and social‑media statements endangered judges, lawmakers and the democratic order [3] [6] [5].
2. What their arguments say—and how they differ
Thanedar’s seven articles, as summarized by Axios and his own statement, emphasize statutory and constitutional crimes tied to corruption and the mechanics of power: obstruction, bribery and the alleged usurpation of institutional prerogatives through Executive overreach and financial self‑dealing [1]. Green’s resolution, by contrast, foregrounds the immediate danger to democratic norms and physical safety—arguing that Trump’s rhetoric and actions have stoked violence, emboldened threats against federal judges and officials, and therefore constitute impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” rooted in abuse of presidential power [3] [6]. Both narratives converge on a claim that the president’s conduct threatens the rule of law, but Thanedar leans into legalistic counts of criminality while Green spotlights incitement, intimidation and institutional erosion [1] [3].
3. Who has supported or voted to advance those articles—and the political math
A December 11, 2025 House action where members voted on tabling Green’s resolution produced a headline figure: 140 House members voted against tabling the articles, a number cited by the advocacy group Free Speech For People as evidence of increased support for impeachment since earlier efforts [4]. Reporting in The Hill and Newsweek shows that Democratic leadership did not uniformly embrace the snap push—23 House Democrats voted against Green’s effort and 47 reportedly voted “present,” a sign of deliberate ambivalence about a vote seen by some as politically risky or symbolic [5] [7]. The broader political context—Republican control of one or both chambers—frames these votes as potent statements of concern but not realistic paths to removal, a point underscored in contemporaneous coverage [8].
4. Other formal resolutions and institutional records
Congressional records list multiple impeachment resolutions filed in the 119th Congress, including H.Res.537 and H.Res.353, which enumerate a range of alleged presidential abuses and provide the formal language for impeachment articles that have circulated in 2025; the Library of Congress entries make clear that House members used standard procedural vehicles to lodge those charges even if they were not destined to pass the Republican‑controlled Senate [9] [10]. Advocacy organizations and coalitions compiling “grounds” for impeachment have amplified those filings and encouraged more members to sign on, creating a sustained campaign environment beyond single sponsors [11].
5. Alternatives, agendas and limits of available reporting
Supporters framed these impeachments as constitutional duties to check presidential threats to democracy and safety [3] [2], while critics and some Democrats viewed the moves as politically risky, symbolic or unlikely to succeed under GOP control [8] [7]. The available sources document the primary sponsors, the arguments they publicly advanced, the December floor dynamics and some vote totals [4] [5], but do not provide a full roll call list of the 140 members who voted to advance Green’s articles beyond advocacy group tallies; therefore a complete naming of every individual supporter cannot be reconstructed solely from the materials provided here [4].