Which specific House members voted to advance Al Green’s 2025 impeachment resolution, and what were their public statements explaining their votes?
Executive summary
One hundred forty House Democrats voted to advance Representative Al Green’s December 11, 2025 impeachment resolution by voting “no” on the motion to table, a procedural move that in effect pushed Green’s articles forward for consideration while the motion to shelve them passed 237–140 with 47 Democrats voting “present” [1] [2] [3]. The public statements tied to that vote fall into two broad camps—members who publicly aligned with Al Green’s moral urgency and constitutional argument, and Democrats who criticized the rushed process—yet a complete, named roll call of the 140 supporters is linked by Green’s office but not fully transcribed in the reporting supplied here [4] [5] [6].
1. What the vote numerically signified and where to find the roll call
The House’s December 11 vote resulted in the resolution being tabled 237–140, with 47 Democrats recorded as “present,” which means the 140 who voted “no” on tabling were counted by supporters as having advanced the articles of impeachment against President Trump [1] [3]. Congressman Green’s office posts a copy of the members’ votes and has repeatedly framed the roll call as evidence of growing willingness in the Democratic Conference to confront what he calls executive abuses, but the specific list of 140 names is referenced by those releases rather than reproduced in the articles provided here [4] [5].
2. How Rep. Al Green and allied groups framed the votes
Al Green publicly hailed the 140 members as “courageous,” arguing on the House floor and in press releases that their votes reflected alarm over what he called threats to democracy, violence encouraged by the president, and direct threats to lawmakers and judges—rationale Green used in filing H.Res.939 and in floor remarks defending the move [5] [6]. Outside advocacy organizations echoed that framing: Free Speech for People applauded the 140 lawmakers for “staying true to the Constitution” and encouraged public scrutiny of the roll call, portraying the vote as a measurable increase in impeachment support compared with earlier efforts [3].
3. Why many Democrats did not join Green’s advance—public explanations
House Democratic leaders and a sizeable bloc of rank-and-file Democrats resisted or abstained, saying impeachment requires a methodical investigative process rather than a privileged, snap motion; Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his deputies emphasized the absence of a comprehensive inquiry as the key reason for not endorsing Green’s tactical approach [1]. Individual Democrats who voted to table or vote “present,” like Rep. Betty McCollum, publicly explained that while they may believe the president unfit, impeachment must follow thorough deliberation and due process rather than a rushed procedural gambit [7].
4. Republican reaction and alternative interpretations of the 140 vote
House Republicans dismissed the exercise as a political stunt and warned Democrats that pursuing impeachment would energize GOP messaging and help Republican campaigns—an interpretation presented in news reports and echoed by Republican lawmakers who framed the vote as symbolic rather than substantive given GOP control of Congress [1]. That counterargument is important context: the numerical fact of 140 votes to advance does not translate into a realistic path to conviction or removal while Republicans control the House and Senate, a point noted in mainstream coverage [2] [1].
5. What reporting shows and what it does not—limits of available sourcing
The supplied reporting consistently cites the 140 “no on tabling” votes and highlights Green’s commendations of those members, plus statements from Democratic leaders and individual lawmakers explaining procedural reservations [3] [5] [7] [1]. However, the specific roster of the 140 members and their individualized public statements explaining why each voted to advance are not printed in the materials provided here; Green’s office says a copy of the members’ votes is accessible through its release, but that list and member-by-member public statements would need to be drawn from the roll call record and each member’s press materials or social posts for a full, name-by-name accounting [4].