Which members voted to advance articles of impeachment in December 2025 and what did those votes signify?
Executive summary
On December 11, 2025, the House voted 237–140 with 47 present on a motion to table H.Res.939, Representative Al Green’s privileged resolution to impeach President Donald J. Trump; the 140 “nay” votes on the motion to table meant those members opposed killing the measure and thus advanced the articles for further consideration [1]. The vote was primarily symbolic — praised by advocacy groups and Green’s office as advancing impeachment but widely acknowledged as procedurally unlikely to remove the president given Republican control of Congress [2] [3] [4].
1. What the tally actually was and how to read it
The official House clerk record shows the motion to table H.Res.939 passed 237 yeas, 140 nays, with 47 members recorded as present, meaning a majority voted to end consideration of the resolution while 140 members voted against tabling it — a procedural way of registering support for moving the articles forward rather than killing them outright [1]. Advocacy organizations and Rep. Green framed the 140 nays as “advancing” the articles of impeachment, and public statements from Free Speech for People and associated campaigns explicitly celebrated those lawmakers as having “voted to advance” the impeachment effort [2] [5].
2. Who those 140 members were — and the reporting limits
Contemporary reporting and the House clerk’s roll call provide the official vote totals and the public rollcall list [1], and advocacy releases assert that 140 members opposed tabling [2] [5]. The sources assembled for this report, however, do not include a consolidated list of individual names; Newsweek and other outlets focused on the partisan dynamics rather than printing every voter’s name, and Rep. Green’s office linked to the roll call for further detail [6] [3]. Therefore, while the precise roster of the 140 is publicly recorded by the House clerk [1], this analysis cannot reproduce a verbatim rollcall roster beyond the aggregate counts without sourcing that list explicitly from the clerk’s published vote sheet.
3. What the votes signified politically inside the Democratic conference
The distribution of votes — 140 opposing tabling, 47 present, and 23 Democrats joining Republicans to vote yea on tabling according to reporting — exposed a clear fissure inside the Democratic caucus between members who wanted to register immediate accountability and those who insisted on investigations and process before an impeachment push [6] [7]. Leadership’s strategy to vote “present” en masse was a deliberate move to neutralize Green’s forced privileged motion while avoiding a blunt party-line rejection of the idea of impeachment; multiple lawmakers who voted present said they believed impeachment could be warranted but only after fuller investigation and deliberation [4] [7].
4. What the votes meant in the larger institutional context
Procedurally, a successful “nay” on the motion to table does not, by itself, remove the president — it simply prevents immediate dismissal of the resolution and signals that a significant minority of the House supports considering impeachment articles publicly [1] [8]. Given Republican control of the House and Senate dynamics noted in contemporaneous coverage, many observers framed the vote as symbolic political theater and a messaging vehicle aimed at constituents and advocacy allies rather than a realistic path to removal [4] [6].
5. How advocates and opponents framed the outcome
Supporters, including Free Speech for People and Al Green’s office, hailed the 140 as courageous lawmakers who “advanced” impeachment and kept constitutional accountability alive [2] [3]. Critics and some Democrats countered that the snap move risked politicizing impeachment and argued process and investigation were prerequisites for credible impeachment articles, a position Democratic leaders underscored by their present votes [7] [4]. Both frames were public and explicit in the sources.
6. Bottom line — a symbolic advance with limited practical effect
The December vote unequivocally recorded 140 members opposing tabling — a formal way to advance Al Green’s articles into the congressional record and public debate [1] — but the vote’s practical consequence was constrained: it signaled intra-party divisions, energized advocates who want immediate impeachment action [2] [5], and left intact the political reality that removal or conviction was unlikely without broader congressional majorities and sustained investigative work [4] [6].