House vote on impeaching rump
Executive summary
The House held a snap vote on December 11, 2025, on Rep. Al Green’s push to impeach President Donald J. Trump; the motion to table the resolution passed 237–140, with 47 present, effectively stalling that particular effort for now [1]. A bloc of 140 members opposed tabling — a number highlighted by advocacy groups as the count of representatives who voted to advance impeachment — while Democratic leaders partly neutralized the move by voting “present” [2] [3].
1. The vote and what it technically accomplished
On the recorded Clerk tally, the House voted on a motion to table the impeachment resolution and that motion passed with 237 yeas, 140 nays, 47 present and 9 not voting, meaning the tabling motion succeeded and the immediate impeachment push was shelved [1]. Advocacy organizations and some reporters framed the 140 nays as a concerted group that “voted to advance” Rep. Al Green’s articles of impeachment — technically accurate in that those members opposed tabling and thus signaled support for further action [2] [1].
2. Competing resolutions and continuing efforts
Multiple impeachment resolutions and texts were filed in the 119th Congress — including H.Res.353, H.Res.537, H.Res.415 and the text of H.Res.939 — each alleging high crimes or abuses of power and providing alternative legal and political pathways for impeachment should leaders choose to pursue them [4] [5] [6] [7]. Those filings mean that while this particular forced vote was tabled, paper trails and legislative vehicles for renewed action remain active on the House docket [4] [5] [6].
3. Party strategy and leadership maneuvers
Democratic leaders deliberately voted “present” during Green’s forced vote, a tactic that scuttled the snap impeachment push by denying the motion a clear majority of committed yeas against tabling while avoiding a party-wide roll call that could have exposed fractures or political vulnerabilities [3]. Republican messaging since then has painted any Democratic effort as opportunistic; President Trump himself has used the possibility of impeachment as a rallying cry to drive midterm turnout warnings to House Republicans [8] [9].
4. Political context fueling the push
Advocacy groups and progressive coalitions publicly urged Congress to act after a string of controversies they say demonstrate abuse of power, framing impeachment as a constitutional imperative rather than mere politics [2]. Meanwhile, mainstream outlets and analysts note the historical difficulty of converting House votes into Senate convictions — impeachment requires a simple majority in the House but a two-thirds Senate vote to convict and remove, a high threshold that shaped strategic calculations on both sides [10].
5. Broader partisan dynamics and related GOP initiatives
The impeachment flashpoint exists alongside other partisan efforts: Republicans in the Senate have convened hearings urging House action against federal judges labeled “rogue” by Trump allies, demonstrating mutual escalation across branches and signaling that impeachment rhetoric is being used as a tool on multiple fronts [11]. That cross-branch pressure suggests impeachment talk is now part of a broader political strategy rather than a discrete legal process limited to a single House resolution [11].
6. What the tally means going forward
The 237–140 tabling vote killed this immediate forced impeachment maneuver, but the presence of multiple House resolutions, the 140 members who opposed tabling, and continuing public and intra-party pressure mean the question isn’t closed; it has been deferred into a longer-term political contest tied to midterm outcomes and ongoing investigations [1] [4] [7]. Polling and betting markets reflected a low but nonzero chance of future impeachment action, and the president’s own warnings about the midterms underscore how electoral fortunes will shape whether the House revisits these measures [12] [8].