A sitting member of Congress has formally moved to impeach President Donald Trump, introducing a resolution that lays out 13 separate articles of impeachment and accuses the president of repeatedly overstepping the limits of his constitutional authority.
Rep. John Larson, a Democrat from Connecticut, filed House Resolution 1155 in early April 2026. The resolution does not mince words: it charges the president with a sweeping pattern of conduct that, in Larson’s framing, amounts to an abuse of the office and a usurpation of powers the Constitution reserves for Congress.
What the 13 articles allege
At the center of the resolution is the question of war powers. The articles accuse the president of usurping Congress’s constitutional authority to declare and authorize war. Among the specific actions cited are deadly U.S. strikes on vessels allegedly carrying drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific, the seizure of Venezuelan oil shipments described in the resolution as “piracy,” and military strikes on Iran.
The resolution also targets the president’s use of force and authority at home. It cites the militarization of domestic law enforcement, unlawful detentions and deportations, and an abuse of the presidential pardon power. Taken together, the 13 articles paint a picture of an executive branch that, in Larson’s view, has slipped its constitutional restraints on both foreign and domestic fronts.
A filed resolution, not a vote
It is important to be precise about what has and has not happened. H.Res.1155 has been filed and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. That is the beginning of the process, not the end of it. It is not a vote of the full House, it is not a Senate trial, and it is most certainly not a removal from office.
In a Republican-controlled House, the resolution has essentially no chance of advancing. The majority controls the committee calendar, and there is no indication leadership intends to give the measure a hearing, let alone bring it to the floor. Realistically, the resolution will sit where it was referred.
That practical reality has not stopped the filing from drawing attention. Supporters argue that putting 13 specific charges on the official congressional record carries weight regardless of whether the resolution moves. It creates a formal marker, a documented set of allegations that becomes part of the public record and the historical account of this presidency.
Why it matters
The filing lands amid a broader debate over the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress. Several of the articles touch directly on that tension, particularly the war-powers allegations. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but for decades presidents of both parties have taken military action without explicit congressional authorization. Larson’s resolution attempts to draw a hard line around that drift.
The resolution has been confirmed by multiple independent sources, including the fact-checking outlet Snopes, the official congressional record at Congress.gov, and the CT Mirror, which covers Connecticut’s congressional delegation. There is no dispute that the resolution exists, that it contains 13 articles, or that it was referred to committee.
What remains contested is what it means. Critics dismiss the move as a symbolic gesture with no path forward, a piece of political theater destined to die in committee. Supporters counter that accountability has to start somewhere, and that a formal resolution forces a conversation the country keeps circling back to: where is the line on presidential power, and who is responsible for enforcing it?
For now, the answer rests with a committee unlikely to act. But the 13 articles are on the record, and the questions they raise about the scope of executive authority are not going away.