Impeachment vote
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The key recent House action on impeachment was a December 11, 2025 roll-call on a motion to table Al Green’s resolution to impeach President Donald J. Trump; the motion to table passed 237–140 with 47 members recorded as “present” and nine not voting, effectively blocking immediate consideration [1]. That tally reflected an organized floor strategy by House leaders and a broader debate about whether to pursue new articles now or preserve political capital for other avenues of accountability [2].
1. What happened on the floor: the tabling vote and its arithmetic
On December 11, 2025 the House voted on “On Motion to Table — Impeaching Donald John Trump,” and the motion passed with 237 yeas, 140 nays, 47 present votes, and nine not voting, a result that by procedural rules ends immediate consideration of Representative Al Green’s articles of impeachment [1]. Advocacy groups sympathetic to the effort framed the 140 “nay” votes as a gain in support compared with earlier efforts and highlighted the raw number as evidence of momentum to advance impeachment, pointing readers to the roll-call for specific member behavior [3].
2. Why so many “present” votes and internal Democratic dynamics
The large block of 47 “present” votes, plus 23 Democrats who explicitly opposed the effort according to reporting, reflected a deliberate decision by House Democratic leaders to avoid a straight partisan floor showdown while signaling discomfort with or ambivalence about the move by Rep. Green [2]. News coverage noted leadership counsel urging members to vote “present” rather than “yea” or “nay,” an implicit calculation to insulate the chamber from a politically messy escalation while leaving open other oversight and legal strategies [2].
3. How advocates and opponents framed the stakes
Pro-impeachment organizations argued the articles were necessary to address what they described as threats to officials and the rule of law, citing allegations that Trump had incited violence and threatened judges and members of Congress — claims central to Rep. Green’s articles and repeated in advocacy literature urging more aggressive action [3]. Opponents, including many House Republicans and some Democrats, argued impeachment was either premature, legally weak, or politically counterproductive on the floor, pressing instead for investigations, prosecutions, or different timing; that resistance manifested in the tabling margin and the elected leadership's preferred tactics [1] [2].
4. Historical and constitutional context: impeachment is only the first step
The House’s power to impeach is singular but incomplete: conviction and removal require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, a threshold that has historically produced acquittals even when the House impeaches — for example, Trump’s 2021 impeachment produced House passage and a subsequent Senate acquittal where convictions fell well short of the 67 votes needed [4] [5] [6]. The Constitution’s two-thirds conviction requirement remains the decisive structural reality shaping whether an impeachment article in the House can meaningfully remove a president from office [7].
5. Political implications and competing agendas
The December tabling vote exposed competing incentives: advocates of immediate impeachment sought to use the constitutional remedy to signal zero tolerance for alleged threats, while party leaders balancing midterm or governance priorities preferred containment and alternative accountability mechanisms, a tactical divide that shapes who benefits politically from either path — activists gain mobilization momentum, leaders seek institutional control and electoral calculations [3] [2]. Reporting shows both sides publicly framing the outcome as either a temporary setback or a strategic preservation of options, underscoring how procedural votes are often proxy contests over broader political strategy rather than binary judgments on guilt [1] [2].