The House of Representatives voted along bipartisan lines to quash a lone progressive lawmaker's bid to impeach President Donald Trump Tuesday afternoon.
Lawmakers agreed to table the measure in a 344–79 vote. A vote to table is a procedural mechanism allowing House members to vote against consideration of a bill without having to vote on the bill itself.
The resolution was offered by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who was infamously ejected from Trump's address to a joint session of Congress earlier this year for repeatedly interrupting the president.
A majority of House Democrats joined Republican lawmakers to kill Green's resolution, a sign of how politically caustic the effort appears to be. Just 79 Democrats voted to proceed with the impeachment vote, while 128 voted to halt it in its tracks.
'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' CRACKS DOWN ON BIDEN'S STUDENT LOAN 'SCHEME,' TOP REPUBLICAN SAYS
Liberals who joined Republicans include all three members of House Democratic leadership – House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, R-N.Y., House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., voted to table the measure.
Green, who has threatened to impeach Trump before, said his latest bid is aimed at the president's strikes on Iran from over the weekend.
"I did not come to Congress to be a bystander while a president abuses power and devolves American democracy into authoritarianism with himself as an authoritarian president," Green said in a statement Tuesday morning.
"President Trump’s unauthorized bombing of Iran constitutes a de facto declaration of war. No president has the right to drag this nation into war without the authorization of the people’s representatives."
Other progressives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., called for Trump's impeachment over the strikes in Iran.
Trump mocked those progressives in a lengthy Truth Social post Tuesday, taunting them to "make my day."
"She better start worrying about her own Primary, before she thinks about beating our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, whose career is definitely on very thin ice!" Trump wrote. "She and her Democrat friends have just hit the Lowest Poll Numbers in Congressional History, so go ahead and try Impeaching me," he posted.
The push has put House Democratic leaders in a difficult spot as well. Jeffries sidestepped questions on progressives calling to oust Trump during a press conference Monday.
REPUBLICANS CHALLENGE 'IRRELEVANT' BUDGET OFFICE AS IT CRITIQUES TRUMP'S 'BEAUTIFUL BILL'
"A tool that's on the table right now is to continue to demand that the administration present itself before the United States Congress and make the case to the American people as to why this extraordinary step has been taken. That's step one," Jeffries said.
"Step two is for the War Powers Resolution, whether that's the one that has already been introduced or others that may subsequently be introduced, for those resolutions to be debated on the House floor, as should have occurred already. And then we'll see where we're at thereafter."
Pressed again on whether he was taking calls for Trump's impeachment seriously, Jeffries said, "This is a dangerous moment that we're in, and we've got to get through what's in front of us. And what's in front of us right now is the Trump administration has a responsibility to come to Congress, justify actions for which we've seen no evidence to justify its offensive strength in Iran."
President Donald Trump dared progressive "Squad" member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to try and impeach him over the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, after she had suggested such a measure.
"Stupid AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the ‘dumbest’ people in Congress, is now calling for my Impeachment, despite the fact that the Crooked and Corrupt Democrats have already done that twice before," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump said the "reason for her ‘rantings’ is all of the Victories that the U.S.A. has had under the Trump Administration."
"The Democrats aren’t used to WINNING, and she can’t stand the concept of our Country being successful again," he wrote.
AOC, OTHER ANGRY DEMOCRATS, CALL FOR TRUMP IMPEACHMENT OVER ATTACK ON IRAN
Trump said Ocasio-Cortez's "test scores" will show that "she is NOT qualified for office but, nevertheless, far more qualified than Crockett, who is a seriously Low IQ individual, or Ilhan Omar, who does nothing but complain about our Country, yet the Failed Country that she comes from doesn’t have a Government, is drenched in Crime and Poverty, and is rated one of the WORST in the World, if it’s even rated at all. "
The president was referring to Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the Texas Democrat who called Trump "the mo-fo" who is "occupying the White House" during a 21-minute social media video rant about the U.S. strikes in Iran. He was also referring to another progressive, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who recently claimed Trump is turning the United States into one of the "worst countries" in the world. The congresswoman originally came to the U.S. as a refugee from Somalia.
"How dare ‘The Mouse’ tell us how to run the United States of America!" Trump wrote. "We’re just now coming back from that Radical Left experiment with Sleepy Joe, Kamala, and ‘THE AUTOPEN,’ in charge. What a disaster it was!"
Trump said Ocasio-Cortez should be forced to take the same cognitive test that he completed at Walter Reed Medical Center as part of his annual physical.
ISRAEL-IRAN CONFLICT: LIVE UPDATES
DEMOCRATIC SEN. FETTERMAN SHUTS DOWN AOC'S CALL FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT AFTER IRAN STRIKES
"As the Doctor in charge said, ‘President Trump ACED it,’ meaning, I got every answer right," Trump wrote. "Instead of her constant complaining, Alexandria should go back home to Queens, where I was also brought up, and straighten out her filthy, disgusting, crime ridden streets, in the District she ‘represents,’ and which she never goes to anymore."
Trump addressed how Ocasio-Cortez is reportedly weighing a primary run against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in 2028. Ocasio-Cortez won re-election in November and next defends her House seat in the 2026 midterms. The congresswoman has come under fire for perceived inaction against a notorious "Red Light" prostitution strip and illegal street vendors plaguing her migrant-heavy district in New York City.
"She better start worrying about her own Primary, before she thinks about beating our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, whose career is definitely on very thin ice!" Trump wrote. "She and her Democrat friends have just hit the Lowest Poll Numbers in Congressional History, so go ahead and try Impeaching me, again, MAKE MY DAY!"
Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday condemned what she called Trump's "disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers."
"He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations," the democratic socialist wrote on X. "It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is somewhat open to caucusing with Democrats—under the right conditions.
In a newly released clip of a forthcoming interview with the podcast GD Politics, Murkowski said there’s a “possibility” she could become an independent and align with Democrats if they flip the Senate in 2026.
“There may be that possibility,” she said. “There is some openness to exploring something different than the status quo.”
Still, she made clear it wouldn’t be a wholesale shift. Murkowski said she’d make the move only if it served Alaskans and didn’t require her to fully embrace the Democratic platform.
“As challenged as I think we may be on the Republican side, I don’t see the Democrats being much better,” she added. “I have to figure out how I can be most effective for the people that I serve.”
The comments arrive shortly before Tuesday’s release of her memoir, “Far from Home”—a fitting title for someone who splits her time between Washington, D.C., and Alaska, and often feels out of step with today’s GOP.
According to CBS News, the book focuses on her life as a centrist in an increasingly polarized Congress. In 2002, Murkowski’s father, who was then Alaska’s new governor, appointed her to fill his vacant Senate seat—something she’s called “accurate” nepotism. But she went on to win a full term, and in 2010, she pulled off one of the most improbable comebacks in Senate history: winning reelection as a write-in candidate after losing her GOP primary to a more right-wing challenger.
“It’s a daily reminder of how I was returned to the United States Senate. It was not through the help or the assistance of the Republican Party; it was through the hope and the assistance and the persistence of Alaskans all across the board,” she told CBS.
In a new interview with Semafor, Murkowski admitted she’s thought about jumping ship from the Republican Party—if only because people keep asking her to.
“I would be not being honest with you if I said I’ve never been asked … ‘Why don’t you switch?’” she said. “Have I considered it? Yes, because I’ve been asked the question.”
It’s no mystery why. Murkowski has built a reputation as one of the few Republicans willing to break ranks. She voted against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, supported some of former President Joe Biden’s court nominees, and has openly criticized her colleagues’ deference to President Donald Trump. She’s also been candid about her party’s fear of challenging tech billionaire Elon Musk during his time in the Trump administration, citing concerns that he might fund primary challenges.
As recently as December, Murkowski said she’s more comfortable without any party label at all.
“I’d rather be that person that is just known for trying to do right by the state and the people that I serve, regardless of party, and I’m totally good and comfortable with that,” she said.
But don’t expect a sudden switch. In that same December interview, Murkowski emphasized that she’s “still a Republican” and has “never shed my party label.”
Plus, according to her interview with GD Politics, cooperation with Democrats would largely depend on them getting to 50 seats in the Senate—something that’s far from certain. Currently, Democrats have 47 seats, and 50 would mean that Republicans still have control of the chamber since a tie gets broken by the vice president, Republican JD Vance. If Murkowski caucused with Democrats in such a scenario, though, it would flip the chamber’s control to that party.
And despite her turbulent history with Trump—he backed a challenge against her in 2022—Murkowski told Semafor the two recently had a “very pleasant” call. She’s also weighing her vote on the GOP’s new tax bill, further proof that, for now, her Republican credentials remain intact.
If Democrats want to bring Murkowski into the fold, they’ll need more than wishful thinking. It’ll take Senate gains—and a party flexible enough to accommodate a center-right maverick.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, has bowed out of the race to become the top Democrat on a key committee that is currently probing former President Joe Biden's alleged mental decline.
Democratic firebrand Crockett was gunning to become the next ranking member, a title given to the senior member of the minority party, on the House Oversight Committee.
"It was clear by the numbers that my style of leadership is not exactly what they were looking for, and so I didn't think that it was fair for me to then push forward and try to rebuke that," Crockett told reporters.
House Democrats held the election during their weekly closed-door caucus meeting Tuesday morning.
148 DEMOCRATS BACK NONCITIZEN VOTING IN DC AS GOP RAISES ALARM ABOUT FOREIGN AGENTS
However, in a smaller election by a key House Democratic panel on Monday night, Crockett and two others lost to Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif. Crockett signaled she came in last of the four, telling reporters on Tuesday, "They were clear that I was the one that made the least sense in their minds.
"I accept that, and I think that you have to make sure that you are going to be able to work with leadership if you are going to go into a leadership position," she said. "I think the people may be disappointed, but at the end of the day, we've got to move forward in this country, we've got ot move forward for this world, and I don't want to be an impediment."
She promised to still be "loud and proud" and a "team player" for Democrats.
The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., played a marquee role in the last Congress as Republicans pursued an impeachment inquiry against the previous president.
Comer's panel is back in the headlines now for another Biden-focused probe, this time looking into allegations that former senior White House aides covered up signs of the elderly leader's cognitive decline.
The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee is expected to act as a foil to Republicans' anti-Biden pursuits.
In addition to those issues, however, the committee is also charged with overseeing the federal workforce and the U.S. government's ownership and leases of federal buildings – both key matters as President Donald Trump and Republicans seek to cut government bloat.
Crockett is already a member of the committee and has been known to make headlines during its hearings. She infamously got into a spat with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., during an oversight hearing last year after Greene mocked Crockett as having "fake eyelashes."
Crockett retorted that Greene had a "bleach blonde, bad-built butch body."
NONCITIZEN LA RIOTERS COULD BE DEPORTED UNDER NEW HOUSE BILL
However, in her pitch to House Democrats, Crockett styled herself as a serious but potent messenger.
"Our work cannot be solely reactive. We must also be strategic in laying the groundwork to win back the House majority," she wrote in a letter earlier this month. "Every hearing, every investigation, every public moment must serve the dual purpose of accountability and must demonstrate why a House Democratic majority is essential for America’s future."
The previous ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, the late Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., died late last month after battling esophageal cancer.
President Donald Trump’s decision to order military strikes on Iran without first seeking congressional approval was met with immediate, yet familiar, criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum.
Presidents have for decades taken actions similar to Trump's and attracted backlash for skirting Congress’s authority. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but presidents the power to control the military and foreign policy.
Gene Healy, a senior vice president with the libertarian Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that in terms of "crossing a constitutional Rubicon, this is territory that presidents have been dancing over since at least Harry Truman."
"In each case, it’s at odds with the original design of constitutional war powers, which is that one single person should not have the power to embroil the United States in foreign wars," Healy said.
SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWS FORDOW NUCLEAR FACILITY AFTER MASSIVE BOMB STRIKE
His think tank also rebuked former President Barack Obama in 2011 after Obama unilaterally authorized airstrikes in Libya as part of a NATO-led effort to enforce a no-fly zone in the country and protect civilians there.
"The president is derelict in his duty to obey the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. And Congress is derelict in its duty to assert its constitutional authority," another member of the thinktank wrote at the time.
Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 to install guardrails for presidents who seek to authorize military action, but critics have said the resolution has lacked potency and that the legislative branch needs to reassert its authority by passing a tougher policy or making good on government funding threats.
Bob Bauer, who served as Obama’s White House counsel, recently spoke with former federal prosecutor Jack Goldsmith in an interview on Substack about what they viewed as the ever-expanding war powers of the president and the ever-shrinking war powers of Congress.
Bauer said that generally, presidents have consulted with their White House counsel and other agencies to make sure they have acquired enough support behind-the-scenes ahead of any anticipated military action.
"It’s just generally understood that this is a choice the president can make," Bauer said, adding, "This is not a tenable situation over the long run, and we’re facing the consequences again now."
TRUMP HINTS AT REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN WHILE DECLARING ‘MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN’
Trump garnered informal support for his actions from crucial members of Congress, including the Senate and House Republican leaders, but lawmakers at the farthest ends of the political spectrum lashed out at him.
"The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., wrote on X, calling for Trump’s impeachment.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., blasted Trump's actions as unconstitutional, saying Congress must pass a resolution giving the president permission to carry out a military act. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., did not outright address Congress’ role in declaring war, but signaled on Monday on X that she opposed Trump’s attack on Iran because, in her view, it defied his Make America Great Again ethos.
The president’s actions were a "complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities," Greene said.
The Office of Legal Counsel, which is part of the Department of Justice, justified Obama's attack on Libya in 2011 in a 14-page opinion, spelling out its position that the then-president did not flout the Constitution or the law by bypassing Congress.
'NOT CONSTITUTIONAL': CONGRESS EVOKES NEW WAR POWERS RESOLUTION TO REJECT TRUMP'S STRIKES ON IRAN
The Trump administration's justification for attacking Iranian nuclear facilities echoed sentiments from the Obama-era memo.
Both administrations cited a broad threat to "national interests" rather than a direct threat to the United States or a dire need for self-defense. Neither president's military actions included "regime change" as a goal, though Trump has since floated that language.
Former President George H.W. Bush did not have explicit authorization from Congress to deploy thousands of troops to Somalia as part of a United Nations mission in 1992, nor did former President Bill Clinton when he sent troops to Bosnia in 1995 and intervened in the Kosovo conflict in 1999 by authorizing airstrikes against Serbian forces.
The Office of Legal Counsel typically advises the executive branch on the legality of its actions, and the memo on the Libya strikes cited a string of other examples that signal presidents have long tiptoed around seeking out congressional authorization, which would require a vote in the House and Senate.
The memo stated that "one possible" limit under the Constitution to a president circumventing Congress to use military force would be when the planned action "constitutes a ‘war’ within the meaning of the Declaration of War Clause."
"But the historical practice of presidential military action without congressional approval precludes any suggestion that Congress’s authority to declare war covers every military engagement, however limited, that the President initiates," the memo read.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, called the prospect of caucusing with Democrats an "interesting hypothetical," but she fell short of fully committing to doing so if the Democrats pick up three seats in the 2027 midterms.
"It’s an interesting hypothetical," Murkowski said on the "GD Politics" podcast with Galen Druke. "You started off with the right hook here, is if this would help Alaskans."
The senator is promoting her new book, a memoir titled, "Far From Home." She was repeatedly asked if she would caucus with Democrats if the party divide in the upper chamber of Congress becomes 50-50 after the next election.
"That’s why this book is kind of scary, because now people know what motivates me, and it’s this love for Alaska and what I can do," she said. "So, that’s my primary goal. I have to figure out how I can be most effective for the people that I serve."
SENATE GOP AIMS TO APPROVE MAJOR LEGISLATION NEXT WEEK AS TRUMP TOUTS PARTY UNITY
Murkowski said the "problem" she had with Druke’s hypothetical was that "as challenged as we may be on the Republican side, I don’t see the Democrats being much better."
She said the Democrats also have policies that she inherently disagrees with.
"I can’t be somebody that I’m not," Murkowski said, describing how she received pressure to run as a Libertarian after narrowly losing the GOP Senate primary in 2010. She went on to win as a write-in candidate in a historic victory, launching her Senate career. "I can’t now say that I want this job so much that I’m going to pretend to be somebody that I’m not. That’s not who I am."
Druke, arguing that Murkowski would not have to become a Democrat to caucus with them, asked, "Is there world in which by becoming unaligned or an independent that you could help Alaskans, you’d consider it?"
"There may be that possibility," she said, noting that the Alaska legislature currently features a coalition with members of both parties.
"This is one of the things that I think is good and healthy for us, and this is one of the reasons people are not surprised that I don’t neatly toe the line with party initiatives, because we’ve kind of embraced a governing style that says if you’ve got good ideas, and you can work with her over there, it doesn’t make any difference if you’re a Republican or Democrat," Murkowski said. "We can govern together for the good of the state."
"If Democrats won three seats in the next election and offered you a way to pass bills that benefit Alaskans if you caucused with them, you’d consider it?" Druke pressed.
REPUBLICAN SEN MURKOWSKI PREPARED TO 'TAKE THE CRITICISM' OVER DOGE PUSHBACK
Murkowski said in response that a coalition is "not foreign to Alaskans," but it is at the federal level in the U.S. Senate.
"I’m evading your answer, of course, because it is so, extremely hypothetical, but you can tell that the construct that we’re working with right now, I don’t think is the best construct," Murkowski said, adding: "Is it something that’s worthy of exploration?"
Murkowski joked that Druke was trying to "make news" and said the rank-choice voting system in Alaska means candidates are more likely to get elected if they are not viewed as wholly partisan.
"It is a different way of looking at addressing our problems rather than just saying it’s red and it’s blue," she added.
Druke hammered the senator again, saying, "Was that a yes? There’s some openness to it?"
"There’s some openness to exploring something different than the status quo," she said.
Murkowski, one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict President Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial after the Jan. 6 riot, recently called the July 4 deadline that GOP leadership wants to pass Trump’s "big, beautiful bill" by "arbitrary."
"I don't want us to be able to say we met the date, but our policies are less than we would want," Murkowski told Axios. "Why are we afraid of a conference? Oh my gosh."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are hesitant about going to conference with the upcoming debt ceiling "X date" approaching and the party lines so tight.
Murkowski, a critic of Trump’s foreign policy, particularly on Ukraine, told the Washington Post that she was in a "lonely position" in the Senate, and sometimes feels "afraid" to speak up among Republican colleagues out of fear of retaliation.
"We used to be called the world’s greatest deliberative body," she told the Post in a recent interview promoting her book. "I think we’re still called it, but now I wonder if it’s in air quotes."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is demanding President Donald Trump and his senior officials "justify" the U.S. military's recent strikes in Iran.
"We've seen no evidence to date that an offensive strike of this nature was justified under the War Powers Act or the Constitution," Jeffries said.
"But the whole reason for the Trump administration to undertake that process is to come up to Capitol Hill and convince the American people and their elected representatives in the House and in the Senate. That hasn't happened."
Trump officials have maintained that the strike was in compliance with the War Powers Act, which requires the White House to notify Congress within 48 hours of a military action and blocks that operation from continuing for more than 60 days without approval from lawmakers.
ISRAEL’S ACTIONS AGAINST IRAN CREATE STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR US IN NUCLEAR TALKS, EXPERTS SAY
Jeffries claimed he had not seen "a scintilla of evidence to date" that shows "there was an imminent threat to the United States of America."
"If the administration has evidence to the contrary, come up to present it. We're not hard to find. I'm not hiding," he said.
The House Democratic leader said he requested a briefing Tuesday for the Gang of Eight, the informal name for the top party and intelligence leaders in Congress.
Trump green-lit airstrikes on three of Tehran's major nuclear sites over the weekend. The president said on Truth Social Monday that the areas hit were "completely destroyed."
The move has sharply divided Democrats, with some pro-Israel moderates backing Trump's move — while several progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have called for the president's impeachment over the operation.
Dozens of left-wing lawmakers have gotten behind a bipartisan war powers resolution by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to limit Trump's ability to strike Iran.
A FULL BREAKDOWN OF OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER, THE ‘LARGEST B-2 OPERATIONAL STRIKE IN US HISTORY’
Meanwhile, Jeffries side-stepped multiple questions on those calls for impeachment during his press conference, instead reasserting his demand that Trump officials come before Congress.
"A tool that's on the table right now is to continue to demand that the administration present itself before the United States Congress and make the case to the American people as to why this extraordinary step has been taken. That's step one," Jeffries said.
"Step two is for the War Powers Resolution, whether that's the one that has already been introduced or others that may subsequently be introduced, for those resolutions to be debated on the House floor, as should have occurred already. And then we'll see where we're at thereafter."
Pressed again on whether he was taking calls for Trump's impeachment seriously, Jeffries said, "This is a dangerous moment that we're in, and we've got to get through what's in front of us. And what's in front of us right now is the Trump administration has a responsibility to come to Congress, justify actions for which we've seen no evidence to justify its offensive strength in Iran."
SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWS FORDOW NUCLEAR FACILITY AFTER MASSIVE BOMB STRIKE
When reached for comment on Jeffries' demands for justification, the White House referred Fox News Digital to press secretary Karoline Leavitt's comments on Fox News Monday morning.
"The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls. In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn't be reached. We tried him before the strike, and he didn't pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as [Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.], who was briefed prior to the strike," Leavitt said.
"We gave these calls as a courtesy, and the Democrats are lying about this, because they can't talk about the truth of the success of that operation and the success of our United States military and the success of this president and this administration in doing something that past administrations — Democrats too — have only dreamed about."