Impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
H. Res. 1155 is a House resolution impeaching President Donald J. Trump and setting out 13 articles of impeachment. The resolution alleges a broad pattern of constitutional violations and abuses of power, including usurping Congress’s war powers, ordering unlawful killings and military actions abroad, militarizing domestic law enforcement, carrying out unconstitutional detentions and deportations, retaliating against protected speech, abusing the pardon power, and interfering with Congress’s appropriations and oversight authority. It also accuses the President of perverting law enforcement against political opponents, suspending or dispensing with laws, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright citizenship protections, misusing emergency declarations, and violating the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses.
The resolution is framed as both a formal impeachment measure and a constitutional record intended to provoke discussion about the state of government. It states that the articles were drafted by Ralph Nader and Bruce Fein and asserts that the conduct described warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office, and disqualification from future federal office. The measure was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and, based on the provided context, has no recorded committee action or vote history beyond referral.
If enacted, the resolution would not itself change statutory law in the way a typical bill does; rather, it would express the House’s accusation against the President and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. Its practical effect would be political and constitutional, not regulatory: it would formalize the House’s position that the President committed impeachable offenses and seek removal and disqualification. The resolution repeatedly references existing constitutional provisions and federal statutes such as the War Crimes Act, the Impoundment Control Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Inspections General Act, and the Alien Enemies Act, but it does not amend those laws.
The overall sentiment in the text is strongly adversarial and condemnatory toward President Trump, using highly charged language and alleging grave misconduct across foreign policy, domestic enforcement, immigration, spending, and civil liberties. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no evidence of bipartisan support or formal debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s tone suggests it is intended as a forceful political and constitutional statement rather than a narrowly tailored impeachment article set.
Notable points of contention include the alleged scope of presidential war powers, the use of the military and emergency authorities domestically, immigration enforcement and deportations, the pardon power, and the President’s handling of appropriated funds and oversight. The resolution also targets actions involving birthright citizenship, law-enforcement investigations of political opponents, and alleged conflicts of interest under the emoluments clauses. These issues reflect deep disputes over executive power, separation of powers, due process, and constitutional limits on presidential authority.
This resolution would not amend state law or federal statutory law; instead, it would invoke the House’s constitutional impeachment power against the President. Its legal effect would be to adopt articles of impeachment and, if advanced, send them to the Senate for trial, potentially leading to removal from office and disqualification from future office. The measure relies on alleged violations of constitutional provisions and existing federal statutes, including the War Crimes Act, the Impoundment Control Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Inspector General Act, and immigration and emergency authorities, but it does not itself create new statutory obligations or penalties.
The sentiment reflected in the resolution is overwhelmingly negative toward President Trump and highly supportive of impeachment as a constitutional remedy. The text presents the President’s conduct as unlawful, abusive, and dangerous to constitutional government, and it is written in a prosecutorial style. No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied record of opposition, compromise, or bipartisan consensus; the available context shows only referral to the Judiciary Committee.
The main points of contention are the breadth and legality of the President’s asserted powers in war-making, immigration enforcement, emergency declarations, spending decisions, and pardons. The resolution also raises disputes over retaliation against critics, the firing of inspectors general, alleged misuse of law enforcement against political opponents, and alleged violations of the emoluments clauses and birthright citizenship protections. Supporters of the resolution would view these as serious constitutional abuses, while opponents would likely dispute the factual premises, legal characterizations, and the claim that the conduct rises to impeachable offenses.