HRES-1486-119
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO OFFER RESOLUTION - Mr. Green (TX) notified the House of his intent to offer a privileged resolution pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX. The Chair announced that a determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
Sponsored by Al Green (D-TX)
What it does
This House resolution would impeach President Donald Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors," citing his oversight of ICE and CBP operations, including alleged unjustified killings of civilians, obstruction of state investigations, use of masked and unidentified officers, and defiance of federal court orders in deportation cases. If adopted by a House majority, it would trigger a Senate trial under Article I, Section 3, which requires a two-thirds vote to convict and remove the President from office.
Who benefits
Supporters of increased accountability for ICE/CBP conduct, families of the individuals named in the resolution (Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero), and advocates for congressional oversight of federal law enforcement agencies who view impeachment as a check on executive power.
Who is hurt
President Trump, who would face formal impeachment proceedings and reputational and political consequences regardless of Senate outcome; ICE and CBP as institutions, which could face heightened public scrutiny; and potentially the sponsor's own party leadership, who may see the resolution as complicating other legislative priorities or messaging strategy.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the President bears ultimate responsibility for federal law enforcement conduct under his direction, and that documented instances of civilian deaths, obstruction of state investigations, and defiance of federal court orders — including the Supreme Court's order regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return — constitute a pattern of abuse of power warranting impeachment. They contend that the Constitution's impeachment power exists precisely to address conduct threatening the rule of law even when it does not violate a specific criminal statute, citing the framers' debates on high crimes and misdemeanors.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the resolution conflates policy disagreements over immigration enforcement with impeachable conduct, and that individual officer misconduct, even if proven, does not establish that the President personally directed or is legally responsible for specific killings. They contend that the resolution's own text acknowledges the President was already impeached once and not convicted, and that using impeachment for events under investigation, without judicial or independent factual findings, risks setting a precedent that impeachment can be used as a political tool rather than a remedy for proven high crimes.
Constitutional context
The resolution invokes Article II, Section 4's impeachment standard for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Article II, Section 1, Clause 8's presidential oath, with any Senate trial governed by Article I, Section 3, which requires a two-thirds vote to convict; impeachment has long been treated as a nonjusticiable political question left to Congress, as reflected in Nixon v. United States (1993), which held that the Senate's method of conducting impeachment trials is not subject to judicial review.
Checks and balances
This resolution exercises the House's exclusive constitutional power to impeach as a check on executive power; the President faces no removal unless the Senate convicts by a two-thirds vote, and courts have historically declined to review the impeachment process itself.
Historical precedent
Trump was previously impeached by the House twice (2019 and 2021) under H.Res. 755 and H.Res. 24, and the Senate acquitted him both times, establishing a direct precedent for this type of resolution against the same official.