RM Washington at a Tipping Point: How 140 Lawmakers Are Driving a Historic Third Impeachment Push Against Trump in 2026

As the United States moves into the opening weeks of 2026, Washington, D.C. is facing a level of political turmoil few observers anticipated. What once appeared to be scattered protests and muted congressional dissent has rapidly evolved into a coordinated institutional challenge—one that now threatens to shake the foundations of the federal government itself.

At the center of this escalating crisis is a striking development: 140 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have publicly aligned themselves with an effort to impeach Donald Trump for a third time. This moment is not a mere replay of earlier impeachment battles. Instead, supporters describe it as a far more serious and legally consequential campaign, shaped by events that have pushed the nation into uncharted territory.

The turning point came with a detailed report presented by Rachel Maddow, revealing the sudden surge of backing for House Resolution 939. Introduced by Texas Representative Al Green, the resolution is framed not as a symbolic protest, but as a carefully constructed legal argument asserting that the president has crossed a fundamental democratic threshold.

For years, Al Green had been a largely solitary figure warning about presidential overreach. Now, he finds himself leading a substantial coalition of lawmakers who believe delay is no longer an option. According to Green, the increasing normalization of political violence and the targeting of judicial institutions represent a “clear and present danger” to the survival of American democracy.

The fact that 140 House members have voted to move these impeachment articles forward signals a dramatic shift within Congress. This is no fringe rebellion. It reflects a growing bloc willing to defy party leadership in pursuit of accountability, suggesting that traditional mechanisms used to suppress impeachment efforts are losing their effectiveness.

In previous sessions, House leaders were able to quietly sideline similar resolutions. In 2026, however, momentum appears to be working in the opposite direction. Each new controversy surrounding the administration seems to draw additional lawmakers into the impeachment camp, reinforcing the sense that the process has reached a point of no return.

The allegations outlined in the resolution go far beyond routine partisan disputes. Among the most alarming claims are accusations related to the president’s rhetoric toward political opponents, particularly individuals connected to the military and intelligence communities.

According to the impeachment articles, the president has made statements interpreted as calls for the execution of sitting U.S. senators—remarks that have sent shockwaves through Capitol Hill. Legal analysts argue that such language cannot be dismissed as hyperbolic political speech, but instead may constitute direct incitement against a co-equal branch of government.

The resolution also documents what it describes as a sustained campaign of intimidation aimed at the federal judiciary. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is among those referenced, with concerns raised that presidential attacks on judges are designed to undermine judicial independence and erode the rule of law.

Justice Jackson herself has suggested that these attacks appear deliberate rather than random, reinforcing fears among constitutional scholars that weakening the judiciary could destabilize the entire constitutional system.

Compounding these concerns are recent military actions undertaken in South America, particularly U.S. strikes in Venezuela. These operations were conducted without a formal declaration of war or explicit congressional authorization, prompting accusations of executive overreach and violations of Congress’s constitutional war powers.

As a result, lawmakers from both parties are increasingly questioning whether the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches has been dangerously distorted. For impeachment supporters, the issue transcends partisan politics—it is about preserving constitutional limits on presidential authority.

Inside the House, political dynamics are shifting rapidly. Although Republicans retain a narrow majority, signs of internal dissent suggest the president’s influence over his own party may be weakening. These cracks have raised expectations of a major confrontation in the months ahead.

The president himself has hinted at this vulnerability, warning supporters that failure to secure decisive Republican victories in the 2026 midterms would make impeachment inevitable. Critics interpret this statement as an acknowledgment that the pressure campaign is gaining traction.

Outside Washington, public engagement is intensifying. Protests branded with slogans such as “Remove the Regime” have emerged in major cities, reflecting a growing sense that the nation is approaching a breaking point. For many Americans, the debate is no longer about political risk, but about the dangers of inaction.

Supporters of impeachment increasingly argue that silence amounts to complicity, insisting that the president’s conduct has crossed from policy disagreement into the realm of impeachable offenses.

Meanwhile, the Senate is preparing for the possibility of an impeachment trial. Unlike previous proceedings, this potential trial would involve allegations that directly threaten the personal safety of senators themselves—raising unprecedented questions about impartiality and constitutional procedure.

As 2026 unfolds, insiders warn that the chaos in Washington is likely to intensify, particularly as further details from the Maddow reports and Representative Green’s resolution become public. The fuse has been lit, and few believe the resulting explosion can be avoided.

Each day brings new headlines, new political defections, and renewed public scrutiny. This moment, many argue, is not just about one presidency, but about whether America’s system of checks and balances can still function under extreme pressure.

The coming months will determine whether the 140 lawmakers spearheading this effort are remembered as defenders of constitutional accountability—or as participants in a failed gamble against executive power. What is clear is that global attention is fixed on Washington, and the consequences of what happens next will resonate far beyond the 2026 election.

With the resolution formally introduced and votes being counted, the message from its supporters is unmistakable: the period of waiting has ended. Whether the rest of Congress chooses to follow remains one of the defining questions of this political era.