Stories

Browse major news stories and see what officials have said.

Sep 27, 2026· Updated

Eight Weeks Out, House Democrats Say Out Loud What a Majority Would Do — Raskin Says a Third Trump Impeachment Is "Not a Taboo With Us" but "Not a Panacea," and Jason Crow Says He Would Start With the Pentagon

On Sunday, September 6, 2026, with the midterms eight weeks away, the House Democrats who would run the investigative committees in a new majority described their plans on the record for the first time. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and the lead impeachment manager in both of Trump's prior Senate trials, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the president has "undoubtedly" committed impeachable offenses in his second term and that a third impeachment would be "a critical tool in the toolbox for constitutional self-defense" — while insisting "it's not a fetish with us" and that health care and "ending the lawlessness" rank higher. Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who sits on Armed Services and Intelligence, told Fox News he would "start on the Department of Defense" because "our service members are being put at tremendous risk," and would not rule out impeachment of Trump or his appointees, calling it "one of several tools." Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member on Oversight, named his first two targets: "Trump family corruption" and "the Jeffrey Epstein investigation." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has repeatedly declined to be pinned down on impeachment. The remarks give Republicans a concrete campaign argument and mark the clearest public accounting yet of what Democratic oversight would look like in 2027.

“Don't be impeaching anybody. Let's just get back to work. … I would rather move the ball forward and to the benefit of the American people.”
Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) · Sep 27, 2026

Three Months After House Democrats Filed Articles Against Her, Senate Democrats Start Saying It Out Loud About the Education Secretary — Chris Van Hollen Says Linda McMahon "Should Be Removed," Angela Alsobrooks Says She Is "Unlawfully Trying to Eliminate the Department of Education," and the White House Answers That She Is "Returning Education Back to the States Where It Belongs"

In June 2026, Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) and John Garamendi (D-Calif.) introduced H.Res. 1391, three articles of impeachment against Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, joined by sixteen other House Democrats. The articles accuse McMahon of illegally dismantling the Department of Education — including an interagency agreement moving enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act to the Justice Department — and of making false statements to the Senate HELP Committee at her confirmation hearing, where she assured senators she would award the funds Congress appropriated and then canceled or withheld hundreds of grants. On September 16, 2026, the effort moved to the Senate. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) both called publicly for McMahon’s removal, and lawmakers joined three former education secretaries — Arne Duncan, John B. King Jr. and Miguel Cardona — and the American Federation of Government Employees in requesting an inspector general investigation into the mass firings at the department and what they cost taxpayers. It makes McMahon the second Cabinet secretary facing impeachment articles in as many days, after Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) filed eight articles against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The White House rejected the premise, with Assistant Press Secretary Liz Huston saying McMahon is carrying out the president’s mandate to return education to the states. With the House adjourned until after the November 3 midterms, no impeachment vote can occur this Congress.

“Someone who’s in the process of doing that has no business being the secretary of Education. … So why is she secretary of Education? She should be removed.”
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) · Sep 16, 2026

Sep 15, 2026· Updated

A Lame-Duck Democrat Files Articles of Impeachment Naming Four People Killed by ICE and CBP — and the White House Answers That He "Should Be Thanking President Trump"

On Monday, August 24, 2026, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) filed H.Res.1486, articles of impeachment charging President Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors for the way federal immigration enforcement has been run. The resolution accuses Trump of "abusing the powers of the presidency by operating United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as his vicious, quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces," and of "wantonly devolving the United States democratic republic into an authoritarian regime." The resolution names four people killed by the two agencies in 2026: Renee Good and Alex Pretti in January, and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in July. Green's charge is not only the killings but the aftermath — that the agencies operated "with anonymity and secrecy," assaulted civilians, and covered up unjustified killings. Green is the member who has forced this question more than anyone else. He was the first to file articles against Trump in his first term, and he filed again in June 2025 over the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, an effort the House torpedoed 344-79. The House has voted to table five of his impeachment resolutions; the most recent, in December 2025, was tabled 237-140 with 47 Democrats voting "present." Green lost his primary runoff in May 2026 and leaves the House in January, which is why coverage framed this as a lame-duck filing that he knows lacks the votes. The timing is what makes it more than a footnote. It lands 71 days before the midterms, while House Democrats are openly split over how hard to confront Trump — Hakeem Jeffries said at a CNBC summit in June that impeachment would not be a focus for the party even if it wins the majority, and Jamie Raskin has called impeachment "not a plausible instrument" from the minority. The White House and DHS both answered within hours, and neither engaged the underlying deaths.

“They will acknowledge that what the president is doing is impeachable, but they would have us wait. Well, the Constitution doesn't have a wait clause in it. … I believe that there are some Republicans and Democrats who are considering voting to protect the president.”
Al Green (D-TX) · Sep 15, 2026

The Air Force Charges a Major Under Article 88 for Calling Trump a "Failure" — His Lawyer Says He Is the First Officer of His Rank Ever Charged With Contempt Toward the President

On Monday, August 24, 2026, the Air Force preferred charges against Maj. Jason P. Watson, an officer last assigned to Poland, over public statements calling for President Trump's impeachment. The charge sheet his attorney released lists ten specifications across three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: three under Article 88 (contempt toward officials), five under Article 92 (failure to obey an order), and two under Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer). Article 88 is the provision that makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use "contemptuous words" against the President, Vice President, Congress and other named officials. It is rarely invoked, and prosecutors must show the words were contemptuous rather than merely critical. Watson's counsel, Christopher Mutimer, says Watson is the first major in the history of the U.S. military to be charged under it. The Article 88 specifications trace to three things: a June interview Watson gave the Substack newsletter Defenders of Our Republic, a July 1 protest in uniform on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, and an August 17 CNN interview in which he said Trump "is flagrantly violating the Constitution, breaking the law, engaged in rampant corruption, and is killing Americans." The July 1 demonstration was held alongside Rep. Al Green (D-TX), who was calling for the impeachment of both Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Watson was arrested there, then taken into pretrial confinement again on August 18 — a day after the CNN interview — after telling his chain of command he would no longer wear the uniform. The Article 92 and 133 counts allege he wrongfully wore the uniform at the Capitol, violated leave regulations to travel to Washington, and then refused to wear the uniform. Watson has remained in military pretrial confinement. "Who I am is immaterial," he said in a statement through counsel. "In the grand scheme of things, I'm just a nobody. What matters far more than who I am is what I have to say and the price I'm willing to pay to say it." The case tests where military law ends and political speech begins at a moment when the administration has already fired the leadership of Stars and Stripes over what its editor called censorship of the troops' newspaper. Active-duty service members do not have the same First Amendment latitude as civilians, and the Air Force has framed the prosecution as ordinary accountability. As of publication, Green is the only member of Congress on record about the case.

“Pursuant to a thorough investigation — which will proceed unimpeded — commanders will ensure appropriate disposition when holding service members accountable in accordance with military law and due process.”
Troy Meink (R) · Aug 25, 2026

25th Amendment and Impeachment Calls Over Trump's Iran Threats

President Trump's escalating rhetoric — from his profanity-laced Easter post threatening to bomb civilian infrastructure to his April 7 declaration that "a whole civilization will die tonight" — triggered an unprecedented wave of calls for his removal. Over 85 House Democrats called for impeachment or the 25th Amendment. Rep. John Larson filed 13 articles of impeachment. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. The push extended beyond Democrats: former ally Marjorie Taylor Greene posted "25TH AMENDMENT!!!" and called Trump "insane," Tucker Carlson called the threats "a war crime, a moral crime," and Alex Jones floated invoking the amendment. Despite the bipartisan criticism, removal remains unlikely with Republicans controlling both chambers and no signs of Cabinet cooperation.

“25th Amendment. Impeachment. I will support any avenue to remove Donald Trump from office. Congress needs to get back in session now to stop this war.”
Ed Markey (D-MA) · Apr 7, 2026

Jan 30, 2026· Updated

Calls Mount for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's Removal

Over 160 House Democrats have signed Rep. Robin Kelly's impeachment resolution against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem following the Minneapolis shootings. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries announced Democrats will launch impeachment proceedings if Noem isn't fired. The resolution cites obstruction of congressional oversight, warrantless arrests violating due process, and self-dealing. Few Republicans have risen to her defense.

“to immediately fire”
John Fetterman (D-PA) · Jan 30, 2026