Donald Trump Hit With 26 Articles Of Impeachment
What Are the 26 Articles of Impeachment Against Trump?
Cohen's resolution is considerably wider than Green's. Its 26 articles encompass allegations involving Trump's immigration policies, the use of military power, federal spending, tariffs, presidential pardons, the federal workforce, universities, law firms, the media, and alleged personal financial benefit from the presidency.
The first article accuses Trump of "undermining democracy" by sowing doubt in elections, while the second alleges an abuse of power by waging war on Iran without congressional approval. Another concerns alleged extrajudicial killings in international waters off Venezuela, while a fourth targets the deployment of military forces against U.S. cities.
Immigration features prominently in the resolution. The articles target Trump's birthright citizenship executive order and the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. They also make allegations concerning conditions at El Salvador's CECOT prison and accuse the administration of defying court orders in immigration enforcement.
Other articles accuse Trump of unlawfully withholding congressionally appropriated funds, imposing loyalty tests on the federal workforce, improperly terminating inspectors general, and abusing presidential pardon powers.
...
Cohen also targets Trump's dealings with the press, law firms and universities. Two articles accuse the president of attacking press freedom, including by excluding reporters from the White House over coverage and allegedly coercing CBS and ABC to alter editorial content.
The press-freedom allegations come amid an ongoing legal battle over Trump's banishing of CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters from the White House, with the three outlets suing to regain access.
Others concern executive actions against law firms and the withholding of federal funds from universities.
The final article alleges that Trump violated the Constitution's emoluments provisions by "profiting personally and directly from the presidency." The claims contained in the resolution are allegations made by Cohen and do not themselves establish that Trump committed impeachable offenses.
“Trump is clearly the most impeachable President our country has ever endured. His continued presence in office is a danger to our democracy," Cohen said in a press release.
"That the sycophantic Republican majority in Congress is derelict in its duty does not mean that I must abandon my responsibilities. I took an independent oath to support and defend the Constitution. That commitment compels me to introduce this resolution today. When historians write about this period, and our constituents ask who stood up to President Trump’s lawlessness, this resolution is the answer."
Cohen has acknowledged that the effort is unlikely to advance. "I know they won't go anywhere, but I'm not going to stop standing up for my constituents and for democracy," he told Nexstar.
The White House has been contacted for comment.
Democrats Divided Over Impeachment
The new resolution arrives amid clear differences among House Democrats over how and when to pursue impeachment.
Green's September effort focused much more narrowly on the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. His resolution accused Trump of abusing presidential powers in connection with immigration operations in which federal officers killed several civilians. The administration defended the officers' actions, saying they had feared for their lives and acted in self-defense.
Democratic leaders did not endorse Green's effort and said impeachment should follow formal investigations and hearings that had not taken place.
Aguilar, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, also said shortly before the Green vote that impeachment was not at the top of House Democrats' agenda.
There is some overlap between the two efforts, particularly over immigration enforcement. Cohen's articles include allegations involving Abrego Garcia, CECOT, and the administration's compliance with court orders in immigration cases. Green's September resolution, by contrast, centered on the immigration crackdown and civilians killed during federal enforcement operations.
Previous Trump Impeachment Efforts
Both Cohen and Green have a history of seeking Trump's impeachment dating back to his first term.
Cohen introduced five articles against Trump in November 2017 while serving as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Green also pursued impeachment during Trump's first year in office. He introduced an impeachment resolution in 2017 accusing Trump of conduct that Green argued had fueled bigotry and hatred and brought the presidency into disrepute.
When Green forced a House vote on an impeachment resolution in December 2017, lawmakers voted 364-58 to table it, with Republicans and most Democrats opposing an effort that Democratic leaders at the time argued was premature.
Trump was impeached twice by the House during his first presidency.
The first came on December 18, 2019, when the House approved articles accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress following an investigation centered on his dealings with Ukraine. The Senate acquitted Trump on both articles in February 2020.
The House impeached Trump for a second time in January 2021 on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. He was subsequently acquitted by the Senate.
The latest 26-article resolution does not mean Trump has been impeached again. An individual House member can introduce articles of impeachment, but impeachment occurs only if the House votes to approve at least one article. Cohen's effort also enters a House controlled by Republicans, and the recent Green vote demonstrated that even Democrats are not united behind another impeachment push.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
