IV 
119TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 415 
Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high 
crimes and misdemeanors. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
MAY 15, 2025 
Mr. GREEN of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary 
RESOLUTION 
Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United 
States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. 
Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the 
United States, is unfit to be President, unfit to represent 
the American values of decency and morality, respect-
ability and civility, honesty and propriety, reputability and 
integrity, is unfit to defend the ideals that have made 
America great, is unfit to defend liberty and justice for 
all as extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance, is unfit to de-
fend the American ideal of all persons being created equal 
as exalted in the Declaration of Independence, is unfit to 
ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
20:39 May 19, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
and to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
posterity as lauded in the preamble to the United States 
Constitution, is unfit to protect government of the people, 
by the people, for the people as elucidated in the Gettys-
burg Address, and is impeached for high crimes and mis-
demeanors, that the following Article of Impeachment be 
exhibited to the United States Senate: 
Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of 
Representatives of the United States of America, in the 
name of itself, and of the people of the United States of 
America, against Donald John Trump, President of the 
United States of America, in maintenance and support of 
its impeachment against him for high crimes and mis-
demeanors committed as President of the United States 
constituting harm to American society to the manifest in-
jury of the people of the United States of America. 
ARTICLE I 
Devolving democracy within the United States into 
authoritarianism with himself (Donald John Trump) as 
an authoritarian President. Merriam-Webster defines 
authoritarianism as, ‘‘relating to, or favoring a concentra-
tion of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally 
responsible to the people’’. 
The Constitution provides that the House of Rep-
resentatives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
20:39 May 19, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
and that the President ‘‘shall be removed from Office on 
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or 
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’ In his conduct 
while President of the United States—and in violation of 
his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of 
President of the United States and, to the best of his abil-
ity, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the 
United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald 
John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors, 
causing the devolution of democracy within the United 
States of America into authoritarianism with himself as 
an authoritarian President. 
Early in his campaign, President Trump indicated his 
dictatorial/authoritarian intentions. On December 5, 
2023, Fox News aired a town hall interview hosted by 
Sean Hannity with then-candidate, Donald Trump, where 
he was asked, ‘‘Under no circumstances, you are prom-
ising America tonight, you would never abuse power as 
retribution against anybody,’’ to which, Trump replied, 
‘‘Except for day one.’’ In speaking to the audience, 
Trump, referring to Hannity, said, ‘‘We love this guy. He 
says you’re not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, 
no, no, no. Other than day one. We’re closing the border 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
02:01 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not 
a dictator. Okay?’’ 
Unfortunately, President Trump’s authoritarianism 
did not end on day one, but instead continued through 
condoning the undermining of the judicial independence 
of the Federal judiciary, disregarding the separation of 
powers, violating the due process clause in the Fifth 
Amendment of the United States Constitution, deni-
grating Federal judges, condoning the flouting of orders 
of United States Federal Courts, including orders of the 
United States Supreme Court, in that: 
On Wednesday, April 16, 2025, James E. Boasberg, 
Chief Judge United States District Court for the District 
of Columbia found that probable cause existed to hold the 
Trump Administration defendants in contempt for a will-
ful disregard for its order. The relevant part of the Memo-
randum Opinion stated as follows: 
(1) ‘‘On the evening of Saturday, March 15, 
2025, this Court issued a written Temporary Re-
straining Order [TRO] barring the Government 
from transferring certain individuals into foreign 
custody pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. At the 
time the Order issued, those individuals were on 
planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out 
of the United States by the Government before they 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting 
their removability in a Federal court, as the law re-
quires . . . Rather than comply with the Court’s 
Order, the Government continued the hurried re-
moval operation. Early on Sunday morning—hours 
after 
the 
Order 
issued—it 
transferred 
two 
planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO into 
a Salvadoran mega-prison’’. 
(2) ‘‘As this Opinion will detail, the Court ulti-
mately determines that the Government’s actions on 
that day [March 16, 2025] demonstrate a willful dis-
regard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to con-
clude that probable cause exists to find the Govern-
ment in criminal contempt. The Court does not 
reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it 
has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or 
explain their actions. None of their responses has 
been satisfactory.’’ 
(3) ‘‘One might nonetheless ask how this in-
quiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given 
that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the 
events in question. That Court’s later determination 
that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, 
does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, 
it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
order ‘must be obeyed’—no matter how ‘erroneous’ 
it ‘may be’—until a court reverses it.’’ 
(4) ‘‘If a party chooses to disobey the order— 
rather than wait for it to be reversed through the ju-
dicial process—such disobedience is punishable as 
contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed defi-
ciencies in the order . . . That foundational ‘rule of 
law’ answers not just how this compliance inquiry 
can proceed, but why it must.’’ 
(5) ‘‘The rule ‘reflects a belief that in the fair 
administration of justice no man can be judge in his 
own case,’ no matter how ‘exalted his station’ or 
‘righteous his motives.’ ’’ 
(6) ‘‘The Constitution does not tolerate willful 
disobedience of judicial orders—especially by offi-
cials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath 
to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul 
the judgments of the courts of the United States’ 
would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under 
those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ 
of ‘the constitution itself.’ ’’ 
(7) ‘‘ ‘So fatal a result must be deprecated by 
all.’ ’’ 
(8) ‘‘For the foregoing reasons, the Court will 
find probable cause that Defendants’ actions con-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
02:01 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
stitute contempt. It will provide them an opportunity 
to purge such contempt. If they opt not to do so, the 
Court will proceed to identify the contemnor(s) and 
refer the matter for prosecution. A separate Order 
so stating will issue this day.’’ 
On March 18, 2025, President Trump published a 
statement denigrating and calling for the impeachment of 
a judge. In relevant part, the statement averred as follows: 
(1) ‘‘This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a 
troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed 
by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected Presi-
dent.’’ 
(2) ‘‘This judge, like many of the Crooked 
Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IM-
PEACHED!!!’’ 
On March 18, 2025, NPR published an article re-
lated to the President of the United States of America, 
reporting on the President’s call for a judge to be im-
peached. In relevant part, the article stated as follows: 
(1) ‘‘Without naming James Boasberg, the 
chief judge of the district court of Washington, DC, 
Trump said, ‘This judge, like many of the Crooked 
Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IM-
PEACHED!!!’ He also called Boasberg a ‘Radical 
Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agita-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
tor who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein 
Obama.’ ’’ 
(2) ‘‘Reacting to the President’s social media 
post, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a written 
statement of his own: ‘For more than two centuries 
it has been established that impeachment is not an 
appropriate response to disagreements concerning a 
judicial decision. The normal appellate review proc-
ess exists for that purpose’.’’ 
On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court issued opinion 
No. 24A949 regarding the Trump Administration’s re-
quest to vacate an injunction issued by the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Maryland. 
The court’s unanimous judgment and reasoning in 
opinion No. 24A949 (available for perusal), in relevant 
part, stated: 
(1) ‘‘On March 15, 2025, the United States re-
moved Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the 
United States to El Salvador, where he is currently 
detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement 
(CECOT). The United States acknowledges that 
Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order 
forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the 
removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal. The 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
United States represents that the removal to El Sal-
vador was the result of an ‘administrative error’.’’ 
(2) ‘‘The [United States District Court for the 
District of Maryland’s] order properly requires the 
Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release 
from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his 
case is handled as it would have been had he not 
been improperly sent to El Salvador.’’ 
Further in the statement of Justice Sotomayor, with 
whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, respecting 
the Court’s disposition of the application averred that: 
(1) ‘‘The United States Government arrested 
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and 
flew him to a ‘terrorism confinement center’ in El 
Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days 
and counting. To this day, the Government has cited 
no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless ar-
rest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement 
in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Govern-
ment remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 
2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s re-
moval to El Salvador because he faced a ‘clear prob-
ability of future persecution’ there and ‘dem-
onstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and 
would be unable or unwilling to protect him.’ ’’ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
20:39 May 19, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
(2) ‘‘The Government has not challenged the 
validity of that order. Instead of hastening to correct 
its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as 
an ‘oversight.’ ’’ 
(3) ‘‘The Government’s argument, moreover, 
implies that it could deport and incarcerate any per-
son, including U.S. citizens, without legal con-
sequence, so long as it does so before a court can 
intervene.’’ 
On April 14, 2025, days after the Supreme Court 
issued the above opinion No. 24A949, in a meeting with 
President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, Attorney General 
Pamela Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and White 
House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller—President 
Donald Trump was present and condoned their untruthful 
statements opposing the courts opinion related to Abrego 
Garcia’s removal from the United States and the Supreme 
Court’s order to facilitate his return. The meeting was re-
corded by C–SPAN. In the meeting, President Trump 
condoned and defended the untruths that undermine the 
Fifth Amendment mandate of due process prior to the re-
moval of citizens and non-citizens from the United States 
of America. 
C–SPAN reported the following: ‘‘President Trump 
Meets with President of El Salvador: During an Oval Of-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
fice meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, 
President Donald Trump and members of his administra-
tion argued they were not required to return deported Sal-
vadoran citizen Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United 
States, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of 
facilitating his return. President Bukele himself said that 
he was not authorized to return Mr. Garcia, who was le-
gally present in the U.S. before being deported in March. 
The Trump administration alleged that he was a member 
of the MS–13 gang, but it previously admitted that the 
deportation was an ‘administrative error.’ ’’ 
On April 17, 2025, days after the White House meet-
ing referenced above, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit rendered an order exposing, with 
meticulous explication, the untruths utilized—by Attorney 
General Pamela Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and 
condoned by President Donald Trump—to deny due proc-
ess mandated in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. 
Wilkinson, Circuit Judge of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with whom Circuit 
Judges King and Thacker join, stated in relevant part as 
follows: 
(1) ‘‘It is difficult in some cases to get to the 
very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
hard at all. The government is asserting a right to 
stash away residents of this country in foreign pris-
ons without the semblance of due process that is the 
foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it 
claims in essence that because it has rid itself of 
custody that there is nothing that can be done. This 
should be shocking not only to judges, but to the in-
tuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed 
from courthouses still hold dear. The government as-
serts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a mem-
ber of MS–13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regard-
less, he is still entitled to due process. If the govern-
ment is confident of its position, it should be as-
sured that position will prevail in proceedings to ter-
minate the withholding of removal order . . . More-
over, the government has conceded that Abrego Gar-
cia was wrongly or ‘mistakenly’ deported. Why then 
should it not make what was wrong, right?’’ 
(2) ‘‘The Supreme Court’s decision does not, 
however, allow the government to do essentially 
nothing. It requires the government ‘to ‘‘facilitate’’ 
Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador 
and to ensure that his case is handled as it would 
have been had he not been improperly sent to El 
Salvador.’. . . ‘Facilitate’ is an active verb. It re-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
quires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has 
made perfectly clear.’’ 
(3) ‘‘ ‘Facilitation’ does not permit the admit-
tedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the 
one country’s prisons that the withholding order for-
bids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court 
order that the government not so subtly spurns. ‘Fa-
cilitation’ does not sanction the abrogation of habeas 
corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign de-
tention centers in the manner attempted here. Allow-
ing all this would ‘facilitate’ foreign detention more 
than it would domestic return. It would reduce the 
rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very val-
ues for which Americans of diverse views and per-
suasions have always stood.’’ 
(4) ‘‘If today the Executive claims the right to 
deport without due process and in disregard of court 
orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that 
it will not deport American citizens and then dis-
claim responsibility to bring them home? And what 
assurance shall there be that the Executive will not 
train its broad discretionary powers upon its political 
enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would 
always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ 
would lose its meaning.’’ 
(5) ‘‘Today, both the United States and the El 
Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/ 
or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. See Presi-
dent Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with 
the President of El Salvador, WHITE HOUSE 
(Apr. 14, 2025). We are told that neither govern-
ment has the power to act. The result will be to 
leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifi-
cally in an interminable limbo without recourse to 
law of any sort.’’ 
(6) ‘‘Now the branches come too close to grind-
ing irrevocably against one another in a conflict that 
promises to diminish both. This is a losing propo-
sition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from 
the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which 
by dent of custom and detachment we can only spar-
ingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a 
public perception of its lawlessness and all of its at-
tendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for 
a time in weakening the courts, but over time his-
tory will script the tragic gap between what was and 
all that might have been, and law in time will sign 
its epitaph.’’ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
On April 29, 2025, in an interview with ABC News, 
while discussing the continued detention of Kilmar 
Armando Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, the interviewer 
said, ‘‘You could get him back. There’s a phone on this 
desk.’’ President Donald John Trump replied, ‘‘I could.’’ 
Notwithstanding all that has been presented above, 
the Trump Administration continues to flout the Supreme 
Court’s April 10, 2025, order, ‘‘ ‘to facilitate’ Abrego Gar-
cia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure 
that his case is handled as it would have been had he not 
been improperly sent to El Salvador.’’ 
On May 2, 2025, Reuters reported that U.S. Su-
preme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson addressed 
President Donald Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. In rel-
evant part, the article stated as follows: 
(1) ‘‘U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji 
Brown Jackson said on Thursday attacks by Repub-
lican President Donald Trump and his allies on 
judges were ‘not random’ and seemed ‘designed to 
intimidate the judiciary.’ ’’ 
(2) Particularly, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 
Jackson remarked that, ‘‘The attacks are not ran-
dom. They seem designed to intimidate those of us 
who serve in this critical capacity.’’ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
02:01 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
(3) Justice Jackson added, ‘‘The threats and 
harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our 
system of government. And they ultimately risk un-
dermining our Constitution and the rule of law.’’ 
On May 4, 2025, when asked, President Trump did 
not affirm his duty to uphold the Constitution, despite his 
presidential oath to, ‘‘faithfully execute the Office of Presi-
dent of the United States, and . . . to the best of [his] 
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of 
the United States.’’ In an NBC News Meet the Press 
interview, when discussing the facilitation of Abrego Gar-
cia’s return, President Trump was asked, ‘‘The Constitu-
tion says every person, citizens and non-citizens, deserve 
due process . . . Don’t you need to uphold the Constitu-
tion of the United States as President?’’ to which he re-
sponded by saying, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ 
In all this, President Donald John Trump gravely en-
dangered the separation of powers within the government 
and its institutions. He threatened the integrity of the 
democratic system by condoning the undermining of the 
judicial independence of the Federal judiciary, violating 
the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution, denigrating Federal judges, 
ignoring the separation of powers, condoning the flouting 
of orders of United States Federal Courts (including or-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 415 IH 
ders of the United States Supreme Court)—all of which 
have caused the devolution of democracy within the United 
States of America into authoritarianism with himself as 
an authoritarian President. He thereby betrayed his trust 
as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the 
United States. 
Wherefore, authoritarian President Donald John 
Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will 
remain a threat to democracy and the Constitution if al-
lowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner 
grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of 
law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment, 
trial and removal from office, as he is unfit to be Presi-
dent. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:24 May 20, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR415.IH
HR415
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB