Impeachment of Mayorkas
Executive summary
The U.S. House of Representatives impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on February 13, 2024, advancing two articles accusing him of willful refusal to enforce immigration law and breaching the public trust; the narrowly divided vote was 214–213 [1] and followed a year‑long Republican inquiry that produced committee reports [2]. The Senate received the articles in mid‑April, convened jurors, but Democrats successfully moved to dismiss the trial and voted to adjourn after a party‑line 51–49 split, effectively ending removal prospects [3] [4].
1. How the impeachment unfolded and what Congress charged
House Republicans moved formally in January 2024, with the impeachment resolution H.Res.863 alleging a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and breach of the public trust stemming from Mayorkas’s handling of the southern border; the resolution’s text and findings are set out in the committee’s reports and the articles themselves [5] [2]. The House Committee on Homeland Security amended and advanced the articles on January 31, 2024, after hearings and a nearly year‑long investigation that the committee frames as nearly 400 pages of findings [2].
2. The House vote, narrow margin, and prior failed attempt
The full House first voted on February 6 and failed to impeach Mayorkas by a single vote (214–216), then reconvened and passed the articles on February 13 by 214–213—an outcome that split almost entirely along party lines and included a handful of defections noted in roll calls and press tallies [6] [7]. House Republicans, led by figures including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who initially introduced the resolution, framed the effort as accountability for border policy decisions [8] [9].
3. The Senate proceedings and dismissal
After the House transmitted the articles, the Senate received them on April 16 and senators were sworn in as jurors, but on April 17 the Democratic‑controlled Senate voted 51–49 to adjourn and dismiss the impeachment trial, with Democratic leaders arguing the articles were unconstitutional and failed to allege an impeachable offense; media outlets reported the quick dismissal and the practical end of removal possibilities given Senate control [3] [4]. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer publicly argued House managers produced no evidence of criminal conduct or constitutional violation—an assessment echoed in contemporaneous reporting [10].
4. Arguments on both sides and the evidentiary record
Republican impeachment managers accused Mayorkas of implementing a “catch‑and‑release” policy and failing to ensure appearance at immigration proceedings, citing legal disputes including the Supreme Court’s involvement in immigration litigation and the committee’s investigative findings [5] [11]. Democrats and many constitutional scholars countered that the House produced no proof of an impeachable criminality and that the allegations were policy disagreements weaponized for political purposes, a critique reflected in reporting and Senate floor statements [10] [8].
5. Historical context and political motives
The Mayorkas impeachment is historically unusual: he became the first sitting Cabinet secretary impeached by the House in nearly 150 years, a distinction drawing comparisons to the 1876 Belknap case and prompting debate over whether impeachment should be used for policy disputes [1]. Observers and participants acknowledged the political stakes—border security is a major 2024 campaign issue—leading critics to describe the process as a partisan maneuver intended to energize a voting base rather than a straightforward constitutional remedy [12] [8].
6. What this outcome means going forward
With the Senate dismissal, Mayorkas remains in office and the practical consequence is that removal by impeachment has been foreclosed absent a dramatically different Senate composition or new evidence; Senate Democrats’ unity insured that two‑thirds‑plus conviction requirement was unattainable in the current chamber [4] [10]. Reporting captures the competing narratives: House Republicans tout accountability based on committee findings while Democrats and many legal analysts view the episode as a politically motivated stretch of impeachment power—both claims reflected in the public record assembled by congressional texts and mainstream coverage [2] [5] [10].