While much of the country’s attention drifts to other headlines, a quiet but consequential fact sits on the official record in Washington: multiple articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump have been formally filed in the 119th Congress. They are real, they are on paper, and they are part of the public record — even if they are nowhere near becoming reality.
What has actually been filed
Representative Al Green of Texas, one of the most persistent voices for impeachment over the past several years, has introduced multiple impeachment resolutions during this Congress. Separately, Representative John Larson of Connecticut has put forward a sweeping package of 13 distinct articles of impeachment, laying out a detailed, itemized case against the president. Taken together, these resolutions represent one of the broadest impeachment efforts aimed at a sitting president in modern memory.
On the surface, that sounds dramatic — and in a narrow sense, it is. It is unusual for this many formal impeachment articles to be sitting in the House at one time. But the raw fact of a filing tells only part of the story, and an honest accounting requires looking at what those filings mean in practice.
Filed is not the same as impeached
This is the distinction that matters most, and it is the one most often blurred in viral posts. Introducing an article of impeachment is not the same as impeaching someone. Any single member of the House can draft and file a resolution. What turns a resolution into an actual impeachment is a majority vote of the full House — and that step has not happened here.
In fact, the House moved in the opposite direction on at least one of these efforts. In December 2025, the chamber voted to table Representative Green’s impeachment push, effectively setting it aside rather than advancing it toward a floor debate. Tabling a measure is a procedural way of shelving it without a direct up-or-down vote on the merits. So what exists today is best understood as a stack of filed accusations sitting in Congress — not an impeachment that is underway.
Why the gap matters
The space between what has been filed and what House leadership is willing to bring to a vote is exactly where the political fight lives. Supporters of these resolutions argue the articles deserve a genuine hearing and a recorded floor vote, rather than a quiet procedural burial. They contend that serious allegations against a president should be debated in the open, on the record, so voters can see where their representatives stand.
Critics and skeptics — including many within the president’s own opposition — counter that the votes simply are not there. Impeachment requires a majority in the House to impeach and a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict and remove. With the current makeup of Congress, they argue, these efforts are symbolic gestures that have no realistic path to removal, and that pursuing them risks looking performative rather than substantive.
An accountability question for the public
None of this changes the underlying question that so many Americans clearly want to weigh in on: given that these articles have been formally introduced, do the people believe the president should be impeached? That is ultimately a judgment about accountability, not procedure — and it is one where public opinion, however it lands, becomes part of the pressure that shapes what leadership decides to do next.
The resolutions are on file. The votes to advance them are not there today. Whether that changes will depend as much on public sentiment as on the arithmetic inside the Capitol. For now, the honest picture is this: the accusations are formally lodged, the machinery of impeachment has not moved, and the country is left to answer, for itself, a simple question — should President Trump be impeached?