The ghost of impeachment continues to haunt Washington D.C., and recently, it manifested in the halls of Congress with a fresh attempt to force a vote on removing President Donald Trump from office. Yet, despite vocal calls from some progressive corners, the majority of Democratic representatives chose a path of restraint, opting against opening another impeachment inquiry. This decision has sparked a heated debate: was it a strategic masterstroke or a dereliction of duty?
The Drumbeat for Impeachment: What Fueled the Latest Push?
The recent push for impeachment was notably led by Representative Al Green (D-TX). On June 24, 2025, Green introduced House Resolution 537, an article of impeachment against President Trump. His primary charge centered on a grave constitutional concern: “abuse of presidential powers by disregarding the separation of powers” and “usurping Congress’s power to declare war.” Specifically, Green alleged that President Trump authorized U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites without the constitutionally mandated congressional authorization or even proper notice to Congress.
Beyond this immediate concern, Green’s resolution also pointed to a troubling pattern of behavior, suggesting a trajectory towards “authoritarianism.” This included references to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, denials of due process, and attempts to influence the judiciary by calling for the impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him.
These sentiments were echoed by other progressive voices. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), for example, publicly stated that President Trump’s order to strike Iran without congressional approval constituted “grounds for impeachment” and a “grave violation of the constitution.” Similarly, Representative Shri Thanedar (D-MI) introduced his own articles of impeachment, citing a litany of concerns including “bribery, corruption, taking power from Congress, creating an unlawful office,” and violations of First Amendment rights and due process. For these members, the President’s actions represented clear “high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of immediate congressional action.
Why the Majority of Democrats Said “Not Now”
Despite these impassioned calls, the impeachment resolution met a swift end. On June 24, 2025, the House voted 344-79 to table (effectively kill) the resolution. This overwhelming vote included 128 Democrats joining all Republicans in opting against moving forward with an impeachment inquiry.
So, why the widespread Democratic resistance? Several key reasons appear to have influenced their decision:
- Lack of Political Appetite: Many Democrats, having witnessed two previous impeachment attempts against President Trump during his first term that ended in Senate acquittals, simply lacked the appetite for a third. There’s a prevailing sense that another impeachment, particularly with Republicans holding majorities in both the House and Senate, would be a futile exercise destined to fail in the Senate.
- Focus on Other Priorities: Many in the Democratic caucus argued that pursuing another impeachment would be a significant distraction from legislative priorities. Leaders are keen to focus on issues that directly impact American families, such as countering Republican efforts to cut spending on vital programs like Medicaid and nutrition assistance, or addressing economic concerns.
- Insufficient Record and Hearings: Some Democrats, like Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA), expressed concerns that there had been “no support for an impeachment resolution” based on comprehensive hearings and a compiled record. They viewed the forced vote as a “meaningless” procedural maneuver without the necessary groundwork.
- Strategic Timing: The timing of Rep. Green’s resolution, coinciding with President Trump’s first major foreign trip of his second term, was also seen by some as problematic. Criticizing a president while they are abroad, though not a constitutional rule, is an unwritten norm in American politics that some adhere to.
Strategic Prudence or Constitutional Cowardice?
The Democratic Party’s decision to table the impeachment resolution invites a crucial analysis: was it a wise strategic move or a regrettable act of cowardice?
From a strategic perspective, avoiding a likely failed impeachment inquiry has considerable merit. Democrats currently hold minority positions in both the House and the Senate. A protracted impeachment battle, certain to consume significant political capital and legislative time, would almost certainly end in acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate. This would not only be a perceived loss for Democrats but also allow Republicans to paint them as solely focused on partisan attacks rather than addressing the nation’s challenges. By resisting now, Democrats can conserve their resources, avoid the “embarrassment” of a failed impeachment, and potentially position themselves for a more impactful inquiry if they were to regain control of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections.
However, critics argue that this approach verges on constitutional cowardice. Rarely in American history has a President arguably committed so many actions that some consider impeachable offenses. For those who believe President Trump has repeatedly violated his oath of office and undermined democratic institutions, not pursuing impeachment, regardless of the political cost, is seen as a dereliction of the legislative branch’s constitutional duty to act as a check on executive power. It risks normalizing behavior that, in earlier eras, would have undoubtedly triggered severe congressional repercussions, potentially enabling future authoritarian tendencies.
The 2026 Midterms: A High-Stakes Calculation
The strategic calculus behind avoiding impeachment is undeniably linked to the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. The outcome of these elections will determine control of both the House and Senate, and with it, the future leverage of both parties.
Republicans are already making a potential Democratic push for impeachment a central theme of their 2026 campaign strategy. Leaders like Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) are openly stating that a Democratic majority would immediately seek another “baseless impeachment,” hoping to energize their base and deter swing voters who may be fatigued by the constant political battles. President Trump himself is actively engaged in efforts to maintain Republican control of the House, understanding that it’s crucial to stave off further investigations and potential impeachment efforts.
Yet, recent polling suggests this Republican strategy might backfire. A May 2025 poll revealed that a notable 52% of U.S. voters supported the idea of impeaching President Trump. This support wasn’t confined to Democrats (84% in favor); it also included a majority of independents (55%) and even one in five Republican voters. This suggests that, in some key swing districts, a Democratic pledge to hold the President accountable through impeachment could actually motivate their base and attract independent voters, potentially helping them flip the narrow majorities currently held by Republicans.
If the Republican leadership continues to protect President Trump from impeachment inquiries between now and 2026, they run the risk of being seen as complicit in any perceived failures or egregious actions by the President. This could erode their support among moderate voters and even some within their own base who prioritize accountability. Conversely, the Democratic Party’s current resistance might be a smart long-term play, avoiding a premature and likely doomed impeachment now in favor of pursuing one with a far greater chance of success after the 2026 elections, should the political landscape shift in their favor.
Partisanship’s Grip and the Call for Reform
The current political environment surrounding impeachment highlights the deeply toxic role that partisanship and partisan loyalty play in the American political system. The unwavering support shown by a significant portion of the Republican Party for a political figure who has, by many accounts, conducted himself in deplorably divisive and norm-breaking ways, raises profound questions. It suggests that for many, party loyalty has superseded traditional concerns about presidential conduct, constitutional norms, or even the rule of law.
This intense partisanship creates a troubling dilemma: if the legislative branch, designed as a co-equal power to check the executive, cannot or will not act to limit a president due to partisan alignments, what does that mean for the future of American democracy? It suggests a system where accountability can be stifled by political expediency, and executive power can expand largely unchecked.
This situation compels a broader national conversation about potential legislative reforms. Should our nation consider adopting measures designed to ensure no American President can conduct themselves in such authoritarian ways in the future? This could involve strengthening congressional oversight powers, re-evaluating the scope of presidential authority in areas like war-making, or even exploring constitutional amendments to clarify the boundaries of executive power and the mechanisms of accountability. While such reforms would face monumental political hurdles, the repeated challenges to the balance of power during this period may necessitate a serious re-evaluation of how the nation safeguards its democratic institutions against unchecked executive action and the corrosive effects of extreme partisanship.
Leave a Reply