Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
H. Res. 415 is a House resolution introduced by Rep. Al Green of Texas that seeks to impeach President Donald John Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The resolution alleges that Trump is unfit for office and sets out a single article of impeachment accusing him of driving the United States toward authoritarianism, undermining democratic institutions, and violating his constitutional oath and duty to faithfully execute the laws. It cites a series of public statements, court rulings, and administration actions as evidence of misconduct.
The resolution focuses heavily on alleged interference with the judiciary and disregard for due process. It references Trump’s comments about being a dictator “on day one,” his criticism of federal judges, and a March 2025 contempt finding by a federal district court related to the administration’s removal of individuals despite a temporary restraining order. It also cites the Supreme Court’s April 2025 order involving Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, along with subsequent administration statements and actions that the resolution says failed to comply with the Court’s directive to facilitate his return from El Salvador.
If adopted, the resolution would have no direct effect on the state code, but it would initiate the House impeachment process against the President and transmit an article of impeachment to the Senate for trial. Its practical legal effect is therefore political and constitutional rather than statutory: it would formalize the House’s accusation that the President committed impeachable offenses and would place the question of removal before the Senate. The measure is directed at federal executive conduct, federal court orders, and constitutional protections such as due process and separation of powers.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly adverse to President Trump. The resolution uses emphatic language describing him as “unfit” and portrays his conduct as a grave threat to democracy, the rule of law, and the constitutional order. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the available context shows only the sponsor’s position and the resolution’s accusatory framing.
The main point of contention is whether the cited conduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses and whether the President’s actions amount to unlawful defiance of the courts or are instead within executive discretion. The resolution’s strongest claims concern alleged contempt of court, due-process violations, and disregard for Supreme Court and lower-court orders. Supporters of the resolution would likely view these as evidence of authoritarian behavior, while opponents would likely dispute the factual basis, legal interpretation, and constitutional appropriateness of impeachment as a remedy for these disputes.
This resolution does not amend state law or federal statutes; instead, it invokes the House’s constitutional impeachment power under Article I. Its effect would be to authorize and present an article of impeachment against the President to the Senate, where a trial could determine whether he should be removed from office. The measure targets federal executive conduct and alleged violations of constitutional norms, especially due process, judicial independence, and separation of powers, rather than creating new statutory obligations for agencies, states, or private parties.
The sentiment in the bill is overwhelmingly hostile toward President Trump and highly supportive of impeachment. The resolution characterizes his conduct as authoritarian, lawless, and incompatible with democratic self-government. Because no committee transcript or vote record was provided, there is no evidence of bipartisan support or formal committee sentiment in the available context; the only clear sentiment is the sponsor’s forceful condemnation of the President.
The central contention is whether the President’s conduct—especially alleged defiance of court orders, attacks on judges, and immigration-related removals—constitutes impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The resolution treats these actions as proof of authoritarianism and a threat to the Constitution, while likely opponents would argue that the allegations are politically motivated, factually disputed, or better addressed through appellate review, litigation, or oversight rather than impeachment. A second point of contention is the resolution’s reliance on specific court opinions and media reports to support its claims, including the Abrego Garcia matter and the administration’s response to judicial rulings.