Impeach Trump? California lawmakers differ on whether to go ahead with a plan
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- California Democrats split over strategy after House rejected Green’s impeachment.
- California Democrats split on impeachment approach despite clear anti‑Trump sentiment
- House rejected Rep. Al Green’s article by 237–140, ending immediate action.
The House’s latest effort to impeach President Donald Trump predictably went nowhere this week, and while most California Democratic lawmakers made their disdain for Trump clear, they differed on how to proceed.
The effort by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, was rejected by a bipartisan 237 to 140 vote.
One of his articles of impeachment is critical of Trump’s reaction to a video by six Democrats last month that said military service members need not follow unlawful orders.
Trump called such language “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” in a post on Truth Social. He then told Fox News Radio, “I’m not threatening death.”
Green also maintained Trump abused his power when criticizing judges with whom he did not agree.
“We know that if any other president had called for the execution of members of Congress and used vituperative language to intimidate federal judges, the opposition party would not wait until they had a majority to vote for his impeachment—they would do more than condemn his behavior,” Green said.
“Each and every one would have voted to impeach him, and some members of the other party would join them. We just cannot wait until we all agree to do the right thing,” he said. “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us that ‘the time is always right to do what is right.’ ”
California votes on impeachment proposal
Reps. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, Adam Gray, D-Merced, and Jimmy Panetta, D-Salinas, voted to reject Green’s proposal.
“The American people want us to focus on lowering costs of living, as they sent us all here to do. Impeachment is a serious step that should be preceded by a thorough investigation of an impeachable offense. My priority is helping the Valley, not deepening partisan divides, and participating in political theater,” Gray said. “That’s why I voted to table the impeachment resolution.”
Costa and Panetta had not responded by deadline.
All nine state Republicans, including Reps. Kevin Kiley, R-Roseville, Doug LaMalfa, R-Chico, and David Valadao, R-Hanford, also voted to reject the plan.
Thirty-one California House Democrats, including Reps. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, and Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, voted against tabling, or shelving, the effort.
Eight California House members voted “present,” a position that House Democratic leaders adopted.
Rep. Bera and impeachment
Among those who did not vote yes or no was Rep. Ami Bera, D-Sacramento.
He explained to The Sacramento Bee, “I believe President Trump has committed impeachable offenses, including reckless and what I believe are illegal actions off the coast of Venezuela,” where U.S. forces have attacked boats the Trump administration said were involved in drug trafficking.
Trump has been impeached twice by the House, and both times was acquitted by the Senate. Bera voted for impeachment both times.
During the first impeachment, in 2019, Bera was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “where we built a clear and compelling case for impeachment,” he said Friday.
“This was done through an extensive investigation where we gathered evidence, heard from key witnesses, and showed why impeachment was warranted,” Bera recalled. The House voted to impeach Trump at the time for abuse of power and obstruction of justice stemming from his bid to urge Ukraine to interfere in the presidential election.
This week, Bera said he voted present because “I support opening an impeachment inquiry and starting this process. But before Congress votes on articles of impeachment, we have a responsibility to investigate, present the case, and bring the American public along with us.”
House Democratic leadership’s view
House Democratic leaders had similar thoughts.
“Impeachment is a sacred constitutional vehicle designed to hold a corrupt executive accountable for abuse of power, breaking the law and violating the public trust,” said Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar of San Bernardino.
“The effort traditionally requires a comprehensive investigative process, the collection and review of thousands of documents, an exacting scrutiny of the facts, the examination of dozens of key witnesses, Congressional hearings, sustained public organizing and the marshaling of the forces of democracy to build a broad national consensus,” they said.
But so far, “none of that serious work has been done, with the Republican majority focused solely on rubber-stamping Donald Trump’s extreme agenda.”
This story was originally published December 12, 2025 at 2:12 PM with the headline "Impeach Trump? California lawmakers differ on whether to go ahead with a plan."
.jpg)