Which members of Congress sponsored the December 2025 impeachment resolution?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Two separate impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump in 2025 were filed in the House: Rep. Al Green submitted articles of impeachment in May and again in December (H.Res.415 and H.Res.939/H.Res.537), and Rep. Shri Thanedar filed an earlier multi-article resolution (H.Res.353) that initially listed co-sponsors Mr. Mfume, Ms. Kelly and Mr. Nadler before they asked to be removed [1] [2] [3] [4]. Coverage shows Al Green was the principal sponsor of the December 2025 privileged resolution that reached the House floor [2] [5].
1. Who formally filed the December 2025 impeachment resolution — the short answer
Congressional records show Rep. Al Green of Texas submitted the December 10, 2025 impeachment resolution titled H.Res.939 (and related filings listed on Congress.gov) — the measure was referred to the Judiciary Committee and later laid on the table by a House vote [2] [1].
2. Early competing efforts: Thanedar’s multi‑article resolution and its co‑sponsors
Earlier in 2025 Rep. Shri Thanedar (D‑Mich.) introduced a seven‑article impeachment resolution (H.Res.353) that, in its text, listed Mr. Thanedar “for himself, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Nadler, and Ms. Kelly of Illinois” as submitters — but The Hill and other outlets reported Kweisi Mfume, Robin Kelly and Jerry Nadler later asked to have their names removed as co‑sponsors, signaling intra‑party reluctance to back a full impeachment push at that stage [3] [4].
3. What Al Green’s December filing contained and why it mattered
The December privileged resolution filed by Rep. Al Green (H.Res.939/H.Res.415 appear across congressional entries) listed allegations including abuse of power tied to strikes on Iran and rhetoric toward judges; Congress.gov records show Mr. Green submitted the articles, which were referred to the Judiciary Committee and then laid on the table after House action [2] [1] [6]. News reporting of the floor action notes the motion forced a House vote and produced a tabling result [5].
4. How House leaders and rank‑and‑file responded
House Democratic leaders took a cautious path: top Democrats (Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, Pete Aguilar) announced “present” stances on the Republican motion to table, and the House ultimately voted to table the Green resolution — reporting shows many Democrats either voted to table, voted present, or opposed tabling, and some Democrats were listed as voting against tabling or later signing on as cosponsors of Green’s text in June [5] [7] [8]. Local reporting noted Rep. André Carson later cosponsored Green’s articles after reviewing them [8].
5. Numbers and procedural outcome to anchor the dispute
Congressional and press accounts show the House moved to table Green’s impeachment articles; one report records a 344–79 tabling vote on an earlier Green filing, while later December coverage describes the House tabling the privileged motion — the practical effect was that, with Republicans controlling the House, the impeachment effort did not advance to the Judiciary Committee for sustained action [8] [5] [2].
6. Disagreements in the record and gaps readers should know about
Sources agree that Al Green filed the December privileged resolution and that Shri Thanedar filed a separate multi‑article measure earlier; they diverge only in emphasis about co‑sponsorship dynamics. The Hill and Newsweek document co‑sponsors being removed from Thanedar’s resolution [4] [9]. Available sources do not mention a single consolidated list of every lawmaker who ever signed onto the December 10 filing beyond the named submitter (Mr. Green) and individual later cosponsor reports such as Rep. André Carson [2] [8]. If you seek a roll call of every cosponsor for H.Res.939 specifically, available sources do not mention that full list.
7. Political context and motives behind filings
Reporting and the text of the resolutions reflect two motives: a legal‑norms argument that presidential conduct toward judges and use of force raised impeachable concerns, and a tactical/political argument by some Democrats that forcing votes would spotlight presidential conduct even if removal was impossible under a GOP House majority [6] [5]. Journalistic sources note some Democrats worried about the optics and timing, which explains removals of names from Thanedar’s resolution and mixed votes on Green’s motion [4] [5].
Limitations: I used only the provided sources; I do not assert any facts not contained therein. For a definitive, machine‑readable list of all cosponsors on the December filing, consult the official Congress.gov H.Res.939 and its cosponsor table (not fully reproduced in the materials provided here) [2].