It began, as it so often does in American politics, with a single voice rising in a half-empty chamber—quiet at first, then sharper, louder, more urgent. Texas Democrat Rep. Al Green, a long-time critic of Donald Trump, stepped once again onto the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. This time, his tone was not just defiant—it was furious.
The moment wasn’t spontaneous. Green had been here before, many times. His earlier impeachment efforts—three in total during Trump’s first term—had been dismissed by most of his colleagues as symbolic, even performative. But this time, something felt different.
The topic at hand wasn’t January 6, or classified documents, or hush money. It was Gaza.
More specifically, it was President Trump’s recent remarks concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which Green described—without hesitation—as endorsing ethnic cleansing.
“Ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not a joke,” Green thundered. “Especially when it emanates from the President of the United States.”
His voice cracked with emotion. His hands shook slightly as he held up the articles of impeachment he said would be introduced in the coming days. And yet, around him, the House chamber remained largely still—silent, even. No applause. No jeers. Just the weight of history colliding with the machinery of politics.
The Flashpoint: Trump’s Gaza Comments
President Trump’s remarks on the Gaza conflict had come days earlier, during an unscripted portion of a foreign policy roundtable. In comments that drew sharp international criticism, Trump appeared to praise Israel’s hardline tactics in Gaza, suggesting that “you have to clear it out—house by house if needed.”
He then said:
“The only way to restore peace is to eliminate the chaos. And if that means removing a population that’s been radicalized against peace, so be it.”
Critics said Trump was effectively endorsing mass displacement or population removal—a potential violation of international law, if interpreted as ethnic cleansing.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, standing beside Trump during a subsequent photo-op, did not contradict the former president. That silence, Green argued, was complicity.
️ The Speech: Al Green’s Return to the Impeachment Battle
Green’s speech wasn’t just an indictment—it was an eruption.
“Still I rise, Mr. Speaker,” he began, invoking Maya Angelou’s iconic phrase.
“To whom it may concern: Ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not a joke… The Prime Minister of Israel should be ashamed, knowing the history of his people, to stand there and allow such things to be said.”
With that, Green announced his intent to introduce new articles of impeachment against President Trump—this time, for what he called “dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done.”
At 76 years old, Al Green is no stranger to the lonely road. His previous impeachment filings—one over Trump’s racist rhetoric, another over the president’s handling of the Ukraine crisis—were widely seen as political statements, not serious legislative efforts.
But Green disagrees.
“I did it before. I laid the foundation for impeachment, and it was done,” he declared.
“Nobody knows more about it than I, and I know it’s time to lay the foundation again.”
The Political Math: Is This Going Anywhere?
Despite the forcefulness of Green’s message, the response from fellow Democrats was muted at best.
“It’s not a focus of our caucus,” said Rep. Peter Aguilar, D-Calif., who chairs the House Democratic Caucus.
Behind the scenes, many Democrats worry that yet another impeachment push—especially one centered on foreign policy language—could backfire.
“He’s giving Trump a campaign commercial,” one senior Democrat told Politico on condition of anonymity. “We’re in an election cycle. We’re trying to win swing districts. This doesn’t help.”
Privately, Democratic strategists fear that Gaza, while important, is a polarizing issue—especially with tensions high among young progressive voters, Jewish-American communities, and Arab-American constituencies.
The Articles of Impeachment: What’s In Them?
Though Green has not yet formally submitted the resolution, early drafts reviewed by multiple outlets include three major charges:
-
Abuse of Presidential Speech and Platform – Alleging that Trump used his office to endorse or incite actions that could be interpreted as crimes against humanity.
-
Violation of International Norms and U.S. Foreign Policy Precedent – For deviating from long-standing U.S. positions on civilian protections in war zones.
-
Moral Unfitness for Office – A catch-all clause echoing Green’s previous impeachment filings, invoking the president’s alleged violations of ethical norms.
None of these charges have clear legal precedent. But for Green, the point isn’t necessarily legal—it’s moral.
“On some issues, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all,” Green said in closing.
“On this issue, I stand alone. But I stand for justice.”
Meanwhile: Trump’s Threats Toward Iran Stir Fresh Outrage
Just hours before Green’s floor speech, Trump made a separate set of controversial remarks—this time about Iran.
While signing an executive order aimed at reinstating sanctions and imposing “maximum pressure” on Tehran, Trump stated plainly:
“If [Iran] did that, they would be obliterated… There won’t be anything left.”
He was referring to a foiled Iranian assassination plot uncovered last fall, in which an Iranian national allegedly plotted to kill Trump on U.S. soil.
Though the Department of Justice has confirmed elements of the plot, critics say Trump’s language—threatening full-scale retaliation—echoed George W. Bush-era rhetoric that destabilized the Middle East.
Others, including Republican allies, said the language was necessary and justified.
The Targeted Plot: What We Know
According to U.S. authorities, Farhad Shakeri, a 51-year-old Iranian national, had been instructed by an IRGC officer to “focus on surveilling, and ultimately, assassinating” Trump.
Shakeri reportedly entered the U.S. as a child and was later deported after a conviction. Now believed to be hiding in Iran, he has yet to be apprehended.
Trump referenced the plot on Truth Social and in his executive order remarks, using it to justify expanded military authority should Iran act.
What’s Next: Is Impeachment Even Possible?
Under current House rules, any member of Congress can introduce articles of impeachment. But the resolution must be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)—one of Trump’s staunchest defenders.
In short: It’s not going anywhere under a Republican-led House.
Even if it were introduced and referred to the floor, it would likely fail along party lines—if it even makes it to a vote.
But for Al Green, that’s beside the point.
“The people have to demand it,” he said.
“And when the people demand it, it will be done.”
The Moment That Might Still Matter
In a digital age where clips travel faster than votes, Green’s speech is already being widely shared on social media, especially among progressive accounts and international human rights advocates.
Within hours, hashtags like #ImpeachTrumpAgain and #GazaJustice were trending among left-leaning users.
Whether that online energy translates into political action remains to be seen.
But for now, a single man with a microphone on the House floor has once again ignited a debate that refuses to go quietly into the night.
