Republican Lawmaker Proposes Legislation to Expunge Both Trump Impeachment Records

Rep. Darrell Issa introduced H.Res.1211 in April 2026, a resolution that would formally expunge both of Donald Trump's impeachments from the congressional record — treating them "as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives" [1]. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has confirmed the committee is actively pursuing the measure [2]. No presidential impeachment has ever been expunged in American history.

What the Resolution Says

H.Res.1211 combines into a single resolution what previous efforts had split into separate measures for each impeachment. It was introduced with 23 Republican co-sponsors, including Reps. Claudia Tenney, Scott Fitzgerald, Russell Fry, Mark Alford, Tim Burchett, Tom McClintock, and Harriet Hageman, among others [1].

The resolution's "whereas" clauses lay out specific grievances against both proceedings [3].

On the first impeachment (December 2019), over Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the resolution alleges that the CIA whistleblower who filed the initial complaint had no direct knowledge of the call and displayed "indicia of an arguable political bias." It claims a second intelligence official who helped craft the complaint had connections to Vice President Biden's office and Ukrainian policy discussions. The resolution also alleges that the House Intelligence Committee chair fabricated evidence during testimony and concealed prior contact with the whistleblower [3].

On the second impeachment (January 2021), following the January 6 Capitol breach, the resolution focuses on procedural objections: that "not a single evidentiary hearing" occurred, no witness testimony was presented before the House vote, and the measure passed within two days of introduction without committee debate or official reports [3]. It also questions the legitimacy of the Senate trial, noting that Chief Justice John Roberts declined to preside and that Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, presided instead [3].

The Vote Tallies the Resolution Would Erase

The impeachment votes that H.Res.1211 targets were not strictly party-line affairs — particularly the second one.

In December 2019, the House voted 230-197 to approve the abuse of power article and 229-198 on obstruction of Congress [4]. No Republican voted for either article, but the Senate trial produced a notable break: Sen. Mitt Romney voted guilty on the abuse of power charge, becoming the first senator in American history to vote to convict a president of his own party [5].

Source: U.S. House of Representatives

Data as of Dec 18, 2019CSV

The second impeachment, in January 2021, saw far more Republican defection. Ten House Republicans voted to impeach, including Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Anthony Gonzalez, Fred Upton, Peter Meijer, John Katko, Tom Rice, David Valadao, Jaime Herrera Beutler, and Dan Newhouse [6]. In the Senate trial, seven Republicans voted to convict: Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey [7]. The 57-43 vote was the most bipartisan impeachment conviction vote in American history, though it fell short of the two-thirds threshold required for removal.

Source: U.S. Congress

Data as of Feb 13, 2021CSV

The resolution's characterization of both proceedings as "maliciously false" implicitly labels these Republican votes as illegitimate. Most of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach in 2021 are no longer in Congress — several lost primaries, others retired — though Reps. Valadao and Newhouse won re-election and returned to the House [8]. None of the former members have publicly commented on the expungement effort as of this writing.

Is There Precedent? The Andrew Jackson Parallel

Supporters of expungement point to one historical episode: the 1837 Senate vote to expunge President Andrew Jackson's censure [9].

In 1834, the Senate censured Jackson 26-20 for removing federal deposits from the national Bank of the United States. Three years later, after Jackson's Democratic allies gained a Senate majority, they passed a resolution 25-19 ordering the censure expunged. The Secretary of the Senate retrieved the original journal, drew black lines around the censure text, and wrote across it: "Expunged by order of the Senate, this sixteenth day of January in the year of our Lord, 1837" [9].

But legal scholars identify critical differences between that episode and the current effort. A censure is a single-chamber action with no constitutional consequences. Impeachment, by contrast, involves both the House and the Senate, triggers a formal trial, and carries the potential for removal from office and disqualification. Georgetown Law professor Joshua Chafetz argues that "an impeachment cannot be expunged because it has effect outside of the House" — once the House impeaches, the matter moves to the Senate, where a separate constitutional process unfolds [10].

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley put it more bluntly: impeachment "is not like a constitutional DUI. Once you are impeached, you are impeached" [10].

Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca has taken a more sympathetic view of the expungement argument, acknowledging that the Jackson precedent at least shows Congress has historically been willing to revisit and formally repudiate its own prior actions [10]. But even Magliocca has noted the structural distinction between censure and impeachment.

The Constitutional Debate

The core legal question is whether the House's "sole Power of Impeachment" under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution includes the power to un-impeach.

The case for authority: Proponents argue that the Constitution grants each chamber broad control over its own proceedings and records. If the House can impeach by simple majority vote, the argument goes, it can also vote to declare that impeachment void. Rep. Issa has framed the effort as the House exercising its inherent power to correct its own record: "Our goal is to show that it's false and it was maliciously false and as a result it should no longer stand as a legitimate accusation" [1].

The case against: Critics counter that impeachment is not a purely internal House action — it triggers a constitutional process that extends to the Senate. The Constitution says nothing about expungement, and neither do the Rules of the House [10]. The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, has noted that the Constitution "does not provide a mechanism for expunging impeachments" [11]. Once articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate and a trial takes place, the House cannot unilaterally undo what became a bicameral proceeding.

The separation-of-powers objection is also significant. The Senate conducted two full trials, with senators sitting as jurors under oath. A House-only resolution purporting to nullify those proceedings would effectively be one chamber overriding the other's constitutional function.

What Would Expungement Actually Do?

Even if H.Res.1211 passed the House, its practical effect would be limited at best.

The resolution states the impeachments should be treated "as if such Article had never passed," but it provides no directive for how that would be implemented [3]. It does not instruct the Clerk of the House to alter the Congressional Record. It does not direct the National Archives to remove impeachment-related documents. It does not — and constitutionally could not — affect Senate records of the two trials, which are maintained independently [10].

Trump was acquitted by the Senate in both trials, so expungement would not change his legal standing in any ongoing matters. He faced no removal, no disqualification from office, and no other constitutional penalty from either proceeding [10].

In practical terms, a passed resolution would function as a statement of the House majority's view that the impeachments should not have occurred. Historians, legal databases, news archives, and the Senate's own records would continue to reflect that Trump was impeached twice. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has described expungement resolutions as having "no legal purpose" since Trump was already acquitted [10].

The Procedural Path Forward

H.Res.1211 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jordan, who has publicly endorsed the effort [2]. Jordan told Just The News: "You need a majority vote, we need a bill, and it's actually something we're looking at" [2].

As a House resolution, H.Res.1211 does not require Senate approval or a presidential signature. It needs only a simple majority in the House — 218 votes if all members are present and voting [12].

Republicans currently hold approximately 218 seats in the House, compared to 215 for Democrats, with vacancies fluctuating due to special elections and resignations throughout the 119th Congress [12]. That razor-thin margin means the resolution cannot afford more than a handful of Republican defections and is unlikely to attract any Democratic support.

Source: Congress.gov

Data as of May 1, 2026CSV

No specific vote date has been announced. The Judiciary Committee would first need to mark up and approve the resolution before it could reach the House floor. Given the slim majority, Republican leadership would likely need to ensure near-unanimous caucus support before scheduling a vote.

The resolution does not require Senate action — but that is precisely what critics say limits its significance. Because the Senate is not involved, the resolution cannot affect Senate records, Senate trial transcripts, or the Senate's own votes on conviction.

The Growing Expungement Movement

The current effort did not materialize overnight. Republican lawmakers have introduced at least seven expungement resolutions across three consecutive Congresses [13].

The first was introduced in the 117th Congress (2021-2022). In the 118th Congress, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Elise Stefanik introduced competing resolutions in June 2023, which gained the backing of then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy [14]. Those resolutions never came to a floor vote.

The 119th Congress has seen three resolutions: H.Res.24 and H.Res.25, introduced by Greene in January 2025 targeting each impeachment separately, and H.Res.1211 by Issa in April 2026, which combines both into a single measure and has the explicit backing of the Judiciary Committee chairman [1] [2].

The escalation from backbench resolutions to committee-endorsed action represents a significant shift. With Jordan's public commitment, the effort has moved from symbolic protest to something closer to a legislative priority.

Political Calculus

Whether or not H.Res.1211 has legal force, it carries political weight.

For Republican members, the resolution functions as a loyalty test. Co-sponsoring it signals alignment with Trump and the party's base; declining to co-sponsor — particularly for members who voted to impeach in 2021 — carries the risk of primary challenges. The fates of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach in 2021 illustrate the stakes: most lost primaries, retired under pressure, or left office [6].

If the resolution passes the House, it gives Republicans a messaging victory heading into the 2026 midterm elections — a formal declaration that the party's legislative majority considers both impeachments illegitimate.

For Democrats, the resolution provides a counter-narrative: that Republicans are spending legislative time on symbolic gestures to rewrite history rather than addressing policy priorities. Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee can be expected to use markup hearings to relitigate the underlying facts of both impeachments.

The fundraising implications run in both directions. Expungement energizes Trump's base and provides material for Republican campaign appeals. It also provides Democrats with fodder for their own fundraising and base mobilization efforts.

The Limits of the Record

The deeper question raised by H.Res.1211 extends beyond Trump. Can a future House majority retroactively invalidate any action taken by a prior Congress? If so, the precedent would apply not just to impeachments but to any resolution, censure, or formal action the House has ever taken.

Constitutional law scholars have warned that such a precedent could destabilize the legislative process. If each new majority can declare the prior majority's actions void, the permanence and reliability of congressional action erodes [10] [11].

As of May 2026, H.Res.1211 sits in the Judiciary Committee. Jordan has signaled intent to move forward, but no markup date has been set. The resolution has 23 co-sponsors — enough to demonstrate interest, but far short of the full Republican conference. Whether it reaches the House floor will depend on leadership's confidence that they can deliver the votes without exposing vulnerable members to politically costly roll calls.

The historical record, meanwhile, remains unchanged: Donald Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2019, and again on January 13, 2021. He was acquitted by the Senate both times. No vote by a future Congress can alter those facts — though H.Res.1211 represents the most serious attempt yet to formally declare they should not have happened.