>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The proposed resolution is not expected to move quickly, with sources indicating that any formal push would likely wait until after the upcoming November election cycle. Even among Republicans, there is acknowledgment that assembling the votes needed in both chambers of Congress could be difficult, given the constitutional and procedural questions involved.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has confirmed he has discussed the concept with Trump as well as several legal figures aligned with the former president’s defense team, including Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz and attorney Jay Sekulow, who represented Trump during his first impeachment proceedings.
Johnson has publicly signaled openness to the idea, arguing that new information and continued debate have shifted perceptions among some lawmakers.
“I think it makes a lot of sense the more the evidence comes out, the more we know they really were sham impeachments,” Johnson said.
“It is a priority and something that Congress should make right,” he added.
The historical backdrop of the issue remains highly charged. Trump made history as the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice while in office.
The first impeachment in December 2019 stemmed from allegations brought by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress by pressuring Ukraine to investigate then-former Vice President and future political rival Joe Biden. The Senate later acquitted Trump on both articles.
His second impeachment came in January 2021, just days before leaving office, when the House charged him with incitement of insurrection following the January 6 Capitol riot. The Senate once again acquitted him after he had already departed the presidency.
The renewed push to revisit those proceedings is part of a broader legal and political effort by Trump and his allies to challenge past rulings and decisions that have targeted him in both criminal and civil courts. His legal team continues to pursue appeals related to his New York business records conviction, along with other ongoing litigation.
The idea of expunging the impeachments is not new. In 2023, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Representative Elise Stefanik introduced similar resolutions, though neither gained traction in Congress at the time.
Interest in the concept has reportedly grown again following the declassification of materials related to investigations tied to Trump’s first impeachment. Some conservative commentators, including journalist John Solomon, argue the newly released documents cast doubt on key testimony used during the original proceedings.
Even so, legal scholars remain sharply divided on the issue. While Dershowitz has suggested there may be theoretical arguments for congressional action, he has also acknowledged uncertainty about whether such authority actually exists.
“Nobody knows the answer,” he said.
Other constitutional experts strongly reject the idea outright. Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, dismissed the proposal in blunt terms.
“It’s an absurd idea,” Gerhardt said. “It’s in the history books.”
“Historically, nobody thought that Congress had this power, because Congress doesn’t have this power,” he added.
Supporters of the effort argue that even if the resolution has no legal force, it would serve as a formal statement rejecting what they believe were politically motivated impeachment proceedings. Critics counter that impeachment is a completed constitutional act that cannot be undone retroactively, a view also reported by The Wall Street Journal.
While the proposal faces long odds in Congress, its emergence signals that debates over Trump’s presidency—and how history will ultimately judge it—remain far from settled. If anything, the discussion is likely to intensify as the political climate heats up heading into the next election cycle.
