Texas Democrat Al Green filed a new impeachment resolution against President Trump on Monday, accusing him of "high crimes and misdemeanors" over immigration enforcement, a move his own party's leadership has repeatedly refused to support.

Green's latest articles of impeachment target Trump's oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, alleging the agencies have violated the First and Fourth Amendments through unlawful searches, seizures, arrests, excessive force, and interference with speech and protest. The resolution describes ICE and CBP as "quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces" and argues Trump's conduct violates his constitutional oath, the Daily Mail reported.

The filing marks at least Green's third impeachment attempt during Trump's second term, and his fourth resolution of the year. None of the previous three gained traction. The first, H.Res. 415, was introduced in May 2025, referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and died there. The second, H.Res. 537, was introduced on June 24 and tabled by the full House the same day. A third, H.Res. 939, landed on December 11, branding Trump an "abuser of Presidential power" and arguing that "leaving him in office would allow him to keep undermining democracy and inciting violence." No outcome for that resolution has been reported.

Green's record on impeachment stretches back years. He claims he helped lay the groundwork for Trump's first impeachment in 2019. Trump was impeached twice by the House during his first presidency; neither resulted in removal by the Senate. The pattern is familiar: Green files, leadership distances itself, the resolution goes nowhere, and Green files again.

Democratic leaders keep Green at arm's length, again

Green's persistence has created an awkward dynamic inside his own caucus. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has declined to embrace the effort, saying impeachment "requires a comprehensive investigative process" and that the necessary investigative work had not been done. Pete Aguilar, part of the Democratic leadership team, made clear in February 2025 that impeachment was not an immediate priority.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer put it more bluntly, urging Democrats to focus on congressional oversight instead. "We saw that movie twice and it didn't work," Gottheimer said. Rep. Jamie Raskin has remained open to impeachment in principle but wants a strong factual and legal case built first, a position that amounts to a polite rejection of Green's approach of filing first and building later.

During Trump's first term, then-House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer resisted Green's impeachment pushes on similar grounds, arguing that investigations should be allowed to proceed before the House took such a drastic step. Green pressed ahead anyway. The leadership dynamic has not changed, even as the faces have.

The broader Democratic strategy, according to party leaders, centers on launching wide-ranging investigations into the Trump administration if Democrats retake the House in the midterms, with impeachment as one potential option down the road. That framing treats impeachment as a conclusion to be earned through inquiry, not a starting gun to be fired on a Monday afternoon. Green's approach inverts the sequence, and his colleagues have noticed. Democrats have signaled that impeachment could top their agenda if they win the midterms, but the emphasis has been on building cases methodically, not on Green's serial filings.

Green's resolution cites three deaths tied to immigration enforcement

The Monday resolution leans heavily on specific incidents involving federal immigration-enforcement personnel. Green cites the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, both described as 37-year-old U.S. citizens killed during encounters with federal agents in Minneapolis. He also cites the fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, an illegal immigrant shot by an ICE agent in Houston.

Green frames these incidents as evidence of excessive and unconstitutional force, arguing that Trump bears responsibility because he controls the executive branch and sets immigration-enforcement policy. The resolution alleges racially targeted arrests, unjustified detention, and unjustified uses of deadly force.

What the resolution does not include is as notable as what it does. No official findings of wrongdoing in any of the cited incidents appear in the filing. No completed investigation is referenced. No court ruling supports the constitutional claims Green makes. The specific circumstances of each death, manner, agency involvement, any pending inquiries, remain unclear from the resolution itself. Green is asking the House to impeach a sitting president based on allegations he has not waited for any investigative body to substantiate.

That approach mirrors a pattern House Democrats have applied beyond the presidency. A separate impeachment resolution targeting Education Secretary Linda McMahon followed a similar template: file the resolution, make the accusation, and skip the investigative groundwork that even sympathetic colleagues say is required.

Four resolutions, zero results, and a caucus looking elsewhere

Green's Monday filing lands in a House controlled by Republicans, where it has no realistic path to a vote, let alone passage. Even if Democrats held the majority, his own leadership has made clear it would not fast-track the effort. The resolution will almost certainly follow the same trajectory as its predecessors: a brief moment of attention, then procedural oblivion.

The political cost falls not on Trump but on Democrats forced to answer for Green's filings. Every new resolution revives the question of whether the party is serious about governing or addicted to performative gestures. Gottheimer's assessment, "we saw that movie twice and it didn't work", captures the fatigue inside the caucus. Two House impeachments during Trump's first term produced no removal and, arguably, strengthened Trump's political standing by casting him as a target of partisan overreach.

Green's willingness to keep filing regardless of outcome or support suggests the exercise serves a purpose other than legislative success. It keeps his name in the conversation. It satisfies a constituency that wants confrontation over strategy. And it forces Democratic leaders into the uncomfortable position of publicly explaining why they will not join a colleague's crusade, a dynamic that has played out in various forms across the party, from primary challenges reshaping the caucus to internal fights over how far left the party should lean in competitive races nationwide.

Meanwhile, the voters Green claims to speak for, families affected by enforcement actions, communities navigating the real consequences of immigration policy, get a press release instead of a process. A resolution filed without investigative support, without leadership backing, and without a path to a vote does nothing for the people whose names appear in it.

Filing impeachment articles is easy. Building a case is hard. Green keeps choosing the easy part, and his own party keeps telling him so.