What specific articles of impeachment have been proposed against Trump in the 119th Congress and what evidence do they cite?
Executive summary
Multiple members of the House in the 119th Congress have introduced distinct articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump that allege a wide range of abuses—from usurpation of war and trade powers to intimidation of judges, obstruction of justice, violations of the First Amendment, bribery, and even calls for violence against lawmakers—and each resolution marshals evidence largely drawn from Trump’s public statements, administration actions, and cited news reporting rather than new investigative findings [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The sweep: H.Res.353’s seven-article package and the evidence it cites
Representative Shri Thanedar’s H.Res.353 lays out seven articles: obstruction of justice and denial of due process; usurpation of Congress’s appropriations power; abuse of trade powers and international aggression; violation of First Amendment rights; creation of an unlawful office; bribery and corruption; and tyranny—each article ties alleged constitutional violations to administration practices such as impoundment of funds, trade actions taken without congressional authority, creation of ad hoc offices, and public statements that the resolution characterizes as undermining civil liberties and separation of powers [1] [5] [6]. The text and press materials explicitly cite policy decisions, structural changes to agencies, and campaign-era or presidential statements as the basis for those accusations [5] [6].
2. Targeting judicial intimidation: H.Res.415 and related texts
H.Res.415 and related filings (including documents on Rep. Al Green’s site) concentrate a single article on allegations that Trump has sought to intimidate and undermine the federal judiciary, citing specific public statements calling for judges to be impeached and denigrating judicial officers—most notably a March 18, 2025 statement quoted in the resolution in which the President reportedly said “This judge … should be IMPEACHED” and called a judge a “Radical Left Lunatic,” a line that resolutions reproduce and cite NPR and other reportage to substantiate [4] [7]. The evidence presented in the resolution is therefore documentary: public tweets/statements and contemporaneous media coverage are used to link rhetoric to alleged harms, including reported increases in threats to judges [3] [4].
3. Violence and “call for execution” allegations: H.Res.939
H.Res.939, also filed in the 119th Congress, explicitly accuses the President of having “called for the execution of lawmakers” and frames that as a categorical abuse of presidential power that incites violence and extra-judicial punishment; the resolution’s text and accompanying materials make that extraordinary allegation by citing statements and posts the sponsors interpret as endorsing or encouraging lethal conduct toward members of Congress [3] [8]. The resolution uses media reporting and selected quotes to build its claim; the public-document record is the primary evidentiary basis shown in the filing [3].
4. Abuse of war powers and unilateral uses of force: H.Res.537
H.Res.537 focuses its Article I on what it calls an unconstitutional unilateral use of force by the President without congressional authorization, framing that act as an abuse of Article I powers and as evidence of a drift toward authoritarianism; the resolution references constitutional clauses about war powers and describes specific uses of force and failure to consult Congress as the factual predicates for impeachment [2]. The bill text ties those operational decisions to broader allegations that Trump has “instigated an attack on the United States Capitol” and denied due process in certain circumstances, though these characterizations are contained within the resolution’s argumentative narrative rather than appended investigatory reports [2].
5. What the resolutions do—and do not—prove in this public record
Each resolution cites public statements, administration actions, internal structural changes, reported threats, and media accounts as its evidence, which is standard for articles of impeachment introduced by individual members; none of the source documents provided here represents an adjudicated finding or an approved House vote, and the filings rely heavily on quotations and contemporaneous news reporting rather than new subpoenas, classified disclosures, or judicial determinations contained in the text excerpts available [1] [4] [5]. Alternative viewpoints—that the cited rhetoric is protected political speech or that contested policy acts fall within executive discretion—are not developed in the resolutions themselves but exist in public debate and would be raised by defenders of the President, a point absent from the introducing texts [6].