Government

Home Government

GOP Lawmaker Unveils Historic Move To ‘Expunge’ Impeachments Against Trump

3

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is launching a renewed push to wipe President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from the House record — calling the proceedings a “maliciously false” partisan campaign that damaged Trump’s reputation and abused congressional power.

The California Republican introduced H.Res.1211, a resolution that would formally expunge both impeachments approved by the House in 2019 and 2021 “as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives.”

“The fact is that the Constitution doesn’t spell out what to do when you’ve wrongfully indicted somebody,” Issa told Fox News Digital. “An impeachment is basically an indictment, and it’s an indictment that you can’t really be acquitted from.”

“If you are impeached by the House, famously where do you go to get your reputation back?” he added. “That’s sort of a problem that we’re dealing with.”

The measure, which has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, reignites a fierce constitutional and political debate over whether Congress can retroactively erase an impeachment after it has already become part of the historical record.

Issa argued that newly declassified intelligence documents and revelations about the impeachment investigations justify revisiting the issue years later.

The resolution claims Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 — tied to his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — relied on politically biased and unreliable information supplied by an anonymous whistleblower who allegedly lacked firsthand knowledge.

Issa’s resolution also points to recently declassified material highlighted by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who earlier this year said documents revealed what she described as a “coordinated effort” within the intelligence community “to manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump in 2019.”

Trump became the third president in U.S. history to be impeached in December 2019 after House Democrats accused him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over allegations he pressured Ukraine to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election. The Senate later acquitted Trump in February 2020, with only one Republican — Sen. Mitt Romney — voting to convict on one article.

The president was impeached a second time in January 2021, just days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, on a charge of “incitement of insurrection.” That impeachment made Trump the only president ever impeached twice.

Issa blasted the second impeachment as rushed and fundamentally unfair.

“They impeached him for essentially an insurrection, a true high crime, and it’s false,” Issa said.

The resolution argues House Democrats rammed the second impeachment through Congress in just two days without a full evidentiary process, fact witnesses, or an extended investigation. While lawmakers held a brief hearing with constitutional scholars, Republicans argued Trump was denied basic due process protections.

Trump was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 after falling short of the two-thirds threshold needed for conviction, though seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting guilty — the largest bipartisan vote to convict a president in impeachment history.

Issa also accused Democrats of violating House norms throughout both proceedings.

A source close to Issa’s office told Fox News Digital that some Democrats have privately acknowledged information that emerged after the impeachments “reflects so poorly on the House” and represents “an example of what’s gone wrong in the Capitol and in Washington.”

The effort already has backing from powerful Republicans, including House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.

“Democrats weaponized impeachment against President Trump with politically motivated charges,” Jordan told Fox News Digital. “We applaud Chairman Issa for leading the fight to expunge this sham from the record.”

More than 20 House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors, including Claudia Tenney, Tim Burchett, Harriet Hageman and Ronny Jackson.

The push follows several failed Republican attempts to erase Trump’s impeachments from congressional records. Similar resolutions introduced in 2022 and 2023 never received hearings, markups or floor votes before dying at the end of the previous Congress.

Issa insists this latest effort is different.

“The previous resolutions were not written as strongly as this one and didn’t have what we have,” he said, referring to what he called newly uncovered evidence of misconduct tied to the impeachment inquiries.

Still, constitutional scholars remain divided over whether Congress can truly “erase” an impeachment. Supporters argue the Constitution gives the House the “sole Power of Impeachment,” meaning lawmakers also control their own records and can vote to expunge prior actions.

Critics counter that Congress cannot undo the historical fact that the House impeached a president, even if lawmakers later condemn or annotate the process as flawed. In practice, many legal experts say the effort would be largely symbolic.

Issa, however, says symbolism matters.

“Our goal is to show that it’s false and it was maliciously false,” he said. “When you’ve been falsely accused, whether it’s days, weeks, months or years later, somebody should be just as interested in printing that retraction on the front page as they were in putting the original charge on the front page.”

WHCA Dinner Shooting Prompts New Discussion Surrounding White House Ballroom

The attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is rapidly reshaping the debate over President Donald Trump’s long-controversial plan to build a new White House ballroom — with even some Democrats signaling a shift in tone.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who had previously opposed aspects of the project, acknowledged Monday that lawmakers may now need to reconsider it — not as a political issue, but as a security necessity.

“Do we need a ballroom? Well, that we can discuss that,” Rosen said in an interview. “This isn’t about Donald Trump. It is really about safety. It’s really about safety.”

The $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom proposal — which would replace the demolished East Wing — has drawn criticism for months over cost, transparency, and historical preservation concerns. But Saturday night’s attack, in which an armed suspect attempted to storm the event before being stopped, has injected new urgency into the conversation.

President Trump wasted little time connecting the incident to his long-standing push.

“I didn’t want to say this but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House,” Trump told reporters shortly after the shooting. “It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure.”

Security concerns take center stage

Trump allies argue the incident underscores a glaring vulnerability: Washington lacks a truly secure venue capable of hosting large gatherings of top officials.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is now moving quickly to capitalize on that argument, pushing legislation that would fund the project and include additional security infrastructure beneath the ballroom, including a Secret Service annex.

“It’s very difficult to have a bunch of important people in the same place unless it’s really, really secure,” Graham said. “The times in which we live are unusual… I’ve never felt the sense of threat that exists today.”

The Justice Department echoed that urgency in a late-night court filing, arguing that the shooting should end legal delays blocking the project.

“This Court should never have enjoined this Project, but now, after the Saturday night attempted assassination… reasonable minds can no longer differ — The injunction must be dissolved,” the administration wrote.

The DOJ went even further, warning that halting the project “greatly endangers the lives of all Presidents, current and future.”

Democrats show signs of movement — with caveats

While many Democrats remain skeptical, Rosen’s comments suggest cracks in the previously unified opposition.

She emphasized that large events inherently carry risk and that stronger protections may be necessary.

“You can’t harden each and every [event],” she said, “but you want to try to be sure that they’re as safe as possible.”

Still, Rosen cautioned that the ballroom alone is not a silver bullet.

“One ballroom isn’t the answer to this,” she said.

She also criticized how the project has been handled, particularly the demolition of the East Wing — which housed the first lady’s office and other staff — without what she described as proper congressional process.

“What I object to is it didn’t go through any of those processes before the demolition,” Rosen said. “What was lost… that should have been preserved for history?”

Other Democrats, including Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), have gone further, openly urging their party to reconsider outright opposition to the project.

GOP divisions emerge over funding

Despite broad Republican support for the concept, divisions are emerging over how to pay for it.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a longtime Trump ally, pushed back against using taxpayer dollars, insisting the project should remain privately funded.

“We have $39 trillion of debt,” Scott said. “Maybe we ought to stop spending money.”

Trump has previously maintained that private donors would cover the ballroom’s cost, though critics have raised questions about transparency.

Legal battle intensifies

The project remains tied up in court after a federal judge ruled the administration lacked proper congressional approval, limiting construction to below-ground work while the case proceeds.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued last year after the East Wing was torn down, arguing the project violated preservation laws.

Now, in the wake of the shooting, the administration is urging the court to reverse course — or at least signal it would do so — calling the lawsuit “frivolous” and “dangerous.”

A turning point?

Saturday’s attack — the third assassination attempt against Trump since 2024, according to the administration — may prove to be a pivotal moment in the debate.

What was once dismissed by critics as an expensive and unnecessary expansion is now being reframed by supporters as a critical national security upgrade.

And with even some Democrats beginning to acknowledge the security argument, the political battle over the ballroom may be entering a new phase.

Whether that shift is enough to overcome legal hurdles and funding disputes remains to be seen — but after this weekend, the question is no longer just whether the White House needs a ballroom.

It’s whether Washington can afford not to have one.

Hunter Biden Admits His ‘Bias’ Towards Pardons, Says Founders ‘Didn’t Imagine Trump’

President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

Hunter Biden is openly acknowledging what critics have argued for months: when it comes to his father’s sweeping pardon, he is anything but objective.

“I’m completely biased as it relates to what my dad did for me. I fully understand how uniquely situated I am in being privileged enough to have received a pardon from my father,” Hunter said in an interview published by liberal outlet MediasTouch.

The admission revives scrutiny over former President Joe Biden’s dramatic reversal on the issue. After repeatedly insisting he would not grant clemency to his son, Biden ultimately issued a sweeping pardon—undercutting Democrats’ long-standing “no one is above the law” message as Hunter faced serious federal charges.

Despite conceding his own bias, Hunter declined to weigh in on potential reforms to the presidential pardon system. Instead, he pivoted to attacking former President Donald Trump’s use of the same authority, pointing to the more than 1,000 individuals pardoned in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol protest.

Hunter Biden was granted an unusually broad pardon covering any offense he “has committed or may have committed” between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024—a scope that drew bipartisan criticism.

“I was filled with gratitude,” he said of his father’s decision.

The legal backdrop is significant. In September 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges tied to a scheme that evaded more than $1.4 million in taxes. Months earlier, he was convicted in Delaware for lying about his drug use on a federal firearm purchase form.

Still, Hunter sought to shift the focus toward Trump and his family, saying, “I don’t think that the founders ever imagined Donald Trump. I don’t think they ever imagined the Trump family.”

He also attempted to contrast pardon totals: “I don’t think people understand is that, in the first year, I think—I don’t know the exact number—I think my dad gave 80 or so pardons over a four-year period of time. I think that that’s about the number.”

He added, “Donald Trump has given over 1,500 pardons in the first year alone. But I’m obviously—I’m not the one to be, I don’t think, fairly or unbiasedly talking about the presidential pardon vote.”

Trump, notably, did not pardon any of his children during his presidency, though he did grant clemency in 2020 to Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law.

The White House defended Trump’s record, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying he has used his authority to pardon individuals who were victims of what she described as a “weaponized justice system.”

Jackson also criticized Biden’s final actions in office, arguing that “the only pardons anyone should be critical of are from President Autopen,” citing clemency for violent offenders and “proactive pardons he ‘signed’ for his family members like Hunter on his way out the door.”

In addition to Hunter, Biden issued pardons to several relatives, including his brother James, sister-in-law Sara, sister Valerie, and brother Francis—moves he framed as necessary protection against political retaliation.

READ NEXT: Congresswoman Resigns In Stunning Last-Minute Exit

Gabbard Sends Criminal Referrals To DOJ For 2 Officials Linked To Trump Impeachment

1
Tulsi Gabbard via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has referred two former U.S. officials to the Justice Department for potential criminal investigation, escalating efforts to revisit the events that led to President Donald Trump’s first impeachment.

A spokesperson for Gabbard confirmed that the referrals target a whistleblower and former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, both of whom played central roles in the 2019 inquiry. The spokesperson did not specify what crimes were alleged, and any decision to pursue charges rests with federal prosecutors.

The move follows Gabbard’s release of newly declassified testimony and documents that she argues show a “coordinated effort” within the intelligence community to “manufacture a conspiracy” used to justify Trump’s impeachment.

Atkinson’s actions were instrumental in advancing a whistleblower complaint that raised concerns about Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In that call, Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate then–former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The whistleblower wrote at the time: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”

Gabbard has sharply disputed the legitimacy of that complaint and Atkinson’s handling of it. Her office said Atkinson relied on “secondhand information” and “politicized, manufactured narratives,” and “did not follow standard IG procedures.”

“In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a ‘preliminary investigation,’” her office said, quoting testimony in which he acknowledged he had not determined whether the alleged actions “actually took place.”

Under federal law, however, an inspector general’s role at that stage is limited to assessing whether a whistleblower complaint appears credible, not to fully investigate or verify the claims.

In a post on X, Gabbard accused “deep state actors” of constructing “a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people and impeach duly-elected President @realDonaldTrump in 2019.”

Atkinson, who was fired by Trump in 2020, previously defended his conduct, saying he had “faithfully discharged” his duties and served “without regard to partisan favor or political fear.”

Democrats quickly condemned the referrals and the broader effort to revisit the impeachment.

Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the whistleblower “demonstrated courage and principle” in exposing Trump’s “efforts to extort Ukraine and falsely smear his opponent.”

“This apparent criminal referral will amount to nothing because no misconduct occurred,” Himes said. “But what it will do is chill future whistleblowers from coming forward… I suspect that is precisely the point.”

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, dismissed the declassified materials as “a nothingburger” and “another sad attempt… to get in Donald Trump’s good graces.”

Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress tied to the Ukraine matter. He was acquitted by the Senate in early 2020 in a largely party-line vote and has consistently denied wrongdoing, calling his conversation with Zelenskyy “perfect.”

The latest referrals come as part of a broader push by Gabbard and other officials to reexamine controversies from Trump’s first term, including intelligence assessments of Russian election interference. While some figures connected to those investigations have been subpoenaed in ongoing probes, no charges have been filed.

At the same time, the effort unfolds against a backdrop of renewed political and legal scrutiny surrounding Trump. While prior impeachment proceedings ended in acquittal and are widely viewed as politically unlikely to result in removal from office, they continue to shape partisan divisions in Washington. Any new impeachment-related efforts would face long odds in Congress, particularly given the high threshold required for conviction in the Senate.

Still, the renewed focus on the 2019 impeachment underscores how the political battles of Trump’s presidency continue to reverberate, with competing narratives over the Ukraine episode remaining central to broader debates about executive power, accountability, and the role of intelligence agencies in U.S. politics.

House Democrats File Bill to Form 25th Amendment Commission to Assess Trump’s Mental Fitness

8
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is leading the latest Democratic push to remove President Donald Trump from office—but like past efforts, this one faces steep odds, even as it draws a larger bloc of support.

Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has rolled out a new bill backed by roughly 50 House Democrats that would create a commission to evaluate Trump’s mental fitness under the 25th Amendment.

The proposal would assemble a bipartisan panel of physicians and former top officials to determine whether Trump is “mentally or physically unable” to carry out his duties.

“The Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to create a body that will guarantee the successful continuity of government by responding to presidential incapacity to discharge the powers and duties of office,” Raskin said. “We have a solemn duty to play our defined role under the 25th Amendment by setting up this body to act alongside the Vice President and the Cabinet.”

He added, “Public trust in Donald Trump’s ability to meet the duties of his office has dropped to unprecedented lows as he threatens to destroy entire civilizations.”

Raskin has also formally pushed for a medical evaluation of the president, citing what he called “incoherent, volatile, profane, deranged, and threatening” public comments tied to the Iran conflict.

But here’s the reality: the effort is a long shot.

Republicans still control both chambers of Congress, meaning the bill is unlikely to pass—and even if it did, Trump could veto it. More importantly, the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and the Cabinet to sign off on removing Trump, a scenario widely seen as improbable.

Even in the unlikely event that hurdle were cleared, Congress would still need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to make any removal permanent.

In other words, this is far from a realistic path to ousting the president.

Still, the size of the backing is notable. About 50 Democrats have signed on, making this one of the more organized removal efforts of Trump’s second term so far.

It also comes amid a broader wave of attempts by Democrats to challenge Trump’s presidency—from new impeachment articles filed by multiple lawmakers to calls for the 25th Amendment following his escalating rhetoric on Iran.

That pattern isn’t new. Trump was impeached twice during his first term, with both efforts ultimately failing to remove him from office in the Senate. Now, similar political battles are resurfacing, though with slightly broader coordination this time.

The White House quickly dismissed Raskin’s latest push.

“Lightweight Jamie Raskin is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person,” said spokesperson Davis Ingle. “President Trump’s sharpness, unmatched energy, and historic accessibility stand in stark contrast to what we saw during the past four years when Democrats like Raskin intentionally covered up Joe Biden’s serious mental and physical decline from the American people.”

Trump himself has defended his rhetoric, arguing his hardline stance forced Iran to the negotiating table and helped secure a temporary ceasefire.

For now, Raskin’s plan is unlikely to go anywhere. But the growing number of Democrats backing it—and the renewed push for impeachment and removal—signals that the political fight over Trump’s presidency is only heating up.

Trump Official Refers New York AG Letitia James For Prosecution – Again

0
Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

A senior Trump administration official has made new criminal referrals against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte said in a letter Wednesday to prosecutors in Florida that James may have falsified information on a homeowner’s insurance application submitted to Fort Lauderdale-based Universal Property Insurance. In a separate letter to prosecutors in Illinois, Pulte alleged that James may have also provided false information on an application to Allstate.

The referrals mark the latest development in a series of legal actions pursued by officials in President Trump’s administration against James, a longtime political adversary. In a Truth Social post Wednesday night, President Trump wrote that James had been “referred again for criminal prosecution for alleged homeowner insurance fraud.”

One of the referrals was sent to Jason Reding Quiñones, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Quiñones is currently leading an investigation into Obama-era officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, related to intelligence findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump. Last year, Quiñones also sought records connected to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump.

The second referral was sent to Andrew Boutros, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney for James, rejected the allegations and criticized the administration’s actions.

“abusing their power to pursue a vendetta against her by trying to rename, refile, and repeat baseless allegations.”

“These desperate tactics will fail — just as every previous attempt has failed — and exposes an Administration that has abandoned its responsibility to the American people in favor of petty political payback,” Lowell said.

The new referrals follow a previously dismissed federal case against James. Last fall, she was charged in federal court with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution, based on allegations that she misrepresented details about a property in Virginia to secure more favorable mortgage terms. James denied wrongdoing, and the charges were later dismissed.

The earlier indictment came after Pulte referred James for possible mortgage fraud, though the charges ultimately focused on a different property than the one cited in his referral. A federal judge dismissed the case in November, ruling that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed. A separate case brought by Halligan against former FBI Director James Comey was also dismissed, and two federal grand juries later declined to re-indict James on bank fraud charges.

According to the original indictment, James purchased a Virginia home in 2020 using a mortgage that required the property to be used as a second residence, but she allegedly rented it out as an investment property to obtain a lower interest rate.

James has argued that she is being targeted for political reasons, particularly after she sued Trump in civil court during the period between his presidential terms. A New York judge found Trump and his company liable for fraud and ordered them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars, though an appellate court later overturned the financial judgment.

In court filings last year, James’s attorneys accused Pulte of using the Federal Housing Finance Agency — which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — as a “weapon to be brandished against President Trump’s political enemies.”

CBS News previously reported that prosecutors have also examined financial transactions between James and her longtime hairdresser, Iyesata Marsh, as part of a separate line of inquiry. Pulte has since sought a protective security detail, citing threats he said were connected to the case.

Appeals Court Allows Trump Administration to Continue Third-Country Deportations

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the Trump administration may continue swiftly deporting migrants while a legal challenge to the policy proceeds.

In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit allowed the deportations to continue and moved to speed up the timeline for the next stage of the case. The panel issued its order without an accompanying explanation.

The Trump administration has expanded the use of “third-country removals” as part of its broader immigration crackdown, deporting migrants to nations other than their countries of origin. The administration has reached agreements with several countries — including Cameroon, South Sudan and Eswatini — to accept deportees.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has defended the policy as a way to remove individuals it describes as particularly dangerous.

In court filings, the administration has also argued that federal judges lack the authority to intervene in how immigration enforcement policies are carried out.

The majority on the three-judge panel included Judge Jeffrey Howard, nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Judge Seth Aframe, a nominee of former President Joe Biden. Judge Lara Montecalvo, also nominated by Biden, dissented.

The ruling lifts limits imposed by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, another Biden nominee, who is overseeing a class-action lawsuit filed last year by four noncitizens challenging the deportation policy.

Murphy ruled last month that the administration could not deport migrants to third countries without first attempting to send them to their country of citizenship or another country with which they have ties.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his decision.

His order required immigration authorities to first attempt deportation to a migrant’s country of citizenship or the country normally designated for removal. If that effort failed, Murphy said migrants must be given a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge their deportation once a third country is selected.

Murphy delayed the implementation of his ruling to allow the appeals court time to weigh in. The 1st Circuit’s order keeps his decision on hold while the appeal moves forward.

Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents the migrants, said the group welcomed the expedited timeline.

“While the order unfortunately delays implementation of the decision, we appreciate that the First Circuit ordered a swift resolution of the merits of the government’s appeal,” Realmuto said.

The dispute has already reached the Supreme Court once. Last year, the Trump administration successfully appealed to the high court after Murphy imposed earlier limits on the policy.

In a statement following Monday’s ruling, a DHS spokesperson said the court’s decision supports the administration’s position.

“The Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country, and the Trump Administration has the authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare,” the spokesperson said. “If these activist judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets.”

House GOP Moves To Censure Congressman After Interrupting Trump Speech – Again

Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

A new effort is underway among House Republicans to censure Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) after he was removed from President Donald Trump’s primetime address for the second consecutive year.

Green was ejected from Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night just minutes after the president entered the House chamber. As Trump approached the podium, Green stood holding a sign that read, in all capital letters, “Black people are not apes.” He remained standing with the sign visible as the president began speaking, prompting intervention by the Sergeant at Arms.

Rep. Mike Rulli (R-Ohio) told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that he is seeking support for a formal censure resolution against Green.

“His shenanigans at the State of the Union were uncalled for,” Rulli said. “We can’t really put up with that kind of conduct in Congress. Something had to be done.”

Rulli added, “I’m looking for as many co-sponsors from our conference as possible. And I’m reaching across the aisle for anyone over there that was embarrassed by their own guy.”

According to the text of Rulli’s resolution, first obtained by Fox News Digital, Green’s actions constituted a “breach of conduct.” The resolution further notes that it “was the second time in less than a year that the Representative from Texas had to be removed from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms due to unpatriotic disruptions that violated numerous House rules related to decorum.”

This is not the first time Green has faced formal rebuke from the House. In March 2025, the House of Representatives voted to censure him after he disrupted a previous presidential address by waving his cane and shouting over Trump as the president attempted to deliver his remarks. Ten Democrats joined Republicans in passing that resolution.

Green has long been one of Trump’s most vocal critics in Congress. During Trump’s first term, Green repeatedly introduced articles of impeachment against the president, beginning as early as 2017. His efforts, which cited allegations ranging from obstruction of justice to rhetoric he characterized as discriminatory or inflammatory, were unsuccessful and did not advance out of the House. While Democrats later pursued separate impeachment proceedings that led to two Senate trials, Green’s early impeachment resolutions did not gain sufficient support within his own party to move forward.

Following his removal Tuesday night, Green defended his actions.

“I refuse to tolerate this level of hate that the president is in fact putting into policy. We must take a stand against this level of invidious discrimination,” Green told reporters.

“I wanted him to know, and I wanted them to see it and hear it. Up close. But judging from the expression on his face, he got the message. He saw it,” Green said.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stopped short of committing to a vote on Rulli’s latest censure resolution but indicated he would allow members to decide.

“Al Green was removed pretty quickly. I don’t know if censure is going to be appropriate. I’ll let our colleagues decide that,” Johnson said. “The point of a censure, is to bring someone to the House floor and bring shame upon them for their actions. I think they showed the American people shame already.”

GOP Congressman Floats Prospect Of Contempt Charges For Pam Bondi

4
Image via Pixabay

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) suggested this week that holding Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt remains an option as Congress presses the Justice Department over its handling of the long-awaited Epstein files.

Massie, who helped author legislation requiring the release of government records tied to convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein, said lawmakers are still not receiving full access to unredacted documents — despite the deadline set by Congress.

Appearing Tuesday on CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Massie accused the Justice Department of failing to deliver what the law requires and raised concerns that redactions appear inconsistent and unjustified.

“We have not had access to totally unredacted files,” Massie said, adding that names such as Epstein associate and former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner have been blacked out “for no apparent reason.”

Massie said the DOJ’s refusal to acknowledge gaps in its production makes it difficult for Congress — and the public — to trust that the full truth is being released.

“If they’ll admit that they’re making mistakes and that their document production is not done, I could trust them,” Massie said. “But I can’t trust them if they say… this is it, there’s no more.”

The Kentucky Republican noted he would have limited time to question Bondi when she appeared Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, warning that stronger measures could follow if answers are not forthcoming.

Massie first raised the possibility of using Congress’s “inherent contempt” powers against Bondi in a weekend interview, calling it the most direct way to force compliance.

“The quickest way… to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” he said.

Still, Massie acknowledged the challenge of pursuing contempt charges against the nation’s top law enforcement official, noting that referrals often run through the same department under scrutiny.

“You know, it’s hard to refer a contempt charge… on an attorney general to the attorney general,” Massie said. “This is the problem that you run into.”

Instead, he suggested Congress may need to compel testimony from individuals named in the documents, similar to efforts already underway by the House Oversight Committee.

Bondi’s appearance on Wednesday quickly turned tense as Democrats confronted her over the Justice Department’s redaction process — particularly allegations that some victims’ identities were improperly exposed while other information, including references to powerful individuals, was withheld.

Watch:

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) pressed Bondi to apologize directly to Epstein survivors seated in the hearing room, accusing the DOJ of mishandling sensitive records.

Bondi declined to issue a direct apology for the department’s release process, offering general sympathy for victims but defending the DOJ’s actions. The exchange escalated into a sharp back-and-forth, with Bondi accusing Jayapal of engaging in “theatrics.”

Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) struggled to bring the room back to order as lawmakers debated whether the Justice Department has been transparent — or selective — in what it has released.

Letitia James Sues Federal Government

The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued the federal government Tuesday, arguing that a new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy unlawfully ties major federal funding streams to compliance with the Trump administration’s new restrictions on gender-related medical care for minors.

The lawsuit challenges an HHS policy that, according to the attorneys general, conditions billions of dollars in health, education and research funding on compliance with a presidential executive order addressing sex and gender-related treatments.

Fox News reports:

“The federal government is trying to force states to choose between their values and the vital funding their residents depend on,” James said in a statement. “This policy threatens healthcare for families, life-saving research, and education programs that help young people thrive in favor of denying the dignity and existence of transgender people.”

The dispute stems from President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order directing HHS to take steps to curb what the administration calls “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. President Trump has made limits on transgender-related medical care for minors a central part of his second-term domestic agenda.

NYC Public Advocate Tish James via Wikimedia Commons

Last month, HHS announced a sweeping package of proposed regulatory actions aimed at ending what it described as “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors. In guidance accompanying the announcement, the department warned that doctors and health systems could be excluded from federal health programs — including Medicare and Medicaid — if they provide treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender surgeries to minors.

James’ lawsuit argues that the federal government is using funding leverage to pressure states, hospitals, universities, and other institutions to change policies on transgender care.

The attorneys general also claim HHS lacks legal authority to impose the conditions and is attempting to rewrite federal law through executive action. They argue the policy is vague and fails to spell out what recipients must do to remain compliant, creating uncertainty for states and institutions that rely on federal dollars.

Failure to comply with the policy could lead to termination of grants, repayment of funds already spent, or potential civil or criminal penalties, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit asks a federal court to declare the policy unlawful and block HHS from enforcing it, allowing states and institutions to continue receiving federal funding without changing existing policies.

The legal fight also adds to the long-running political and courtroom clash between Trump and James. James has positioned herself as one of the country’s most aggressive state-level opponents of Trump, repeatedly using New York’s legal powers to pursue high-profile cases involving his businesses and allies. Trump has frequently accused James of pursuing politically motivated investigations.

Trump officials have defended the executive order as a child-protection measure and a pushback against what they say is ideological medicine being imposed through federal agencies and school systems.

The case is expected to intensify a national debate already playing out in Congress and state legislatures, where Republican-led states have moved to restrict or ban gender-related treatments for minors, while Democrat-led states have expanded protections and access.

READ NEXT: Sen. Marsha Blackburn Pushes To Make Fraud A Deportable Offense