Just over two weeks after President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas initiated another impeachment campaign against the president. Green, a vocal critic of Trump throughout his tenure, introduced a new set of articles of impeachment on the House floor. His primary accusation was based on Trump’s controversial announcement that the United States would take full ownership of the Gaza Strip. Green condemned the plan, calling it an act of “ethnic cleansing” and strongly asserting that such actions should never be carried out by a sitting U.S. president, especially one who has previously pledged to support peace efforts in the Middle East.
The resolution presented by Green marks his fourth attempt to impeach Trump, continuing a pattern of challenging the president’s actions that began during his first term in office. Green, who had also been at the forefront of earlier impeachment efforts against Trump, had introduced similar articles of impeachment in 2017, 2019, and 2021, all of which failed to gain enough traction for Senate conviction. Trump’s earlier impeachments were tied to allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress during the Ukraine scandal (2019) and the Capitol riot (2021). However, in both instances, Trump was acquitted after being impeached by the House, largely due to Republican support in the Senate, which kept him from being removed from office.
The announcement regarding the Gaza Strip is perhaps the most controversial element of Trump’s latest foreign policy plan. Under this new proposal, Trump aims to end the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and to turn Gaza into a safe and peaceful region where both Israelis and Palestinians can live without the constant threat of violence. This ambitious plan involves full U.S. intervention in managing the region, with American leadership taking control of Gaza’s administration, infrastructure, and security measures in the hopes of creating long-term stability.
However, Green and many others in the Democratic Party viewed the proposal as problematic. They argued that Trump’s plan to fully occupy Gaza could violate international law, exacerbate tensions in an already volatile region, and undermine Palestinian sovereignty. Green, in particular, saw the move as an attempt to erase the rights of the Palestinian people, describing it as an “ethnic cleansing” strategy aimed at further isolating Palestinian citizens from their land. He contended that the U.S. should not be in the business of dictating the fate of foreign territories, particularly when it comes at the expense of indigenous populations.
This latest impeachment effort comes at a time of heightened political polarization in the United States. While Trump’s supporters have argued that his plan for Gaza is part of his broader strategy to bring peace to the region, critics—led by figures like Rep. Green—believe it is a thinly veiled attempt at consolidating U.S. power over international territories and exacerbating existing tensions in the Middle East. The impeachment articles introduced by Green emphasize that Trump’s actions violate constitutional principles and international norms, and should be subject to scrutiny and accountability.
Given that the Democrats no longer hold a majority in the Senate, many view Green’s latest impeachment effort as unlikely to succeed. However, it serves as a symbolic gesture of opposition to Trump’s policies, and it sends a message to his base and the international community that there are political forces in the U.S. that continue to hold him accountable for his foreign and domestic decisions.
Ultimately, Trump’s Gaza plan will be debated and scrutinized both at home and abroad, and while impeachment may not be a practical option for removing him from office, the intense political backlash surrounding this issue may influence the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy moving forward. Trump, for his part, has defended the proposal, framing it as a necessary step to bring peace to the region, while his critics, led by Green, vow to continue opposing his approach.