Rep. Darrell Issa wants to do something no Congress has ever done: erase two presidential impeachments as though they never happened. The California Republican has introduced House Resolution 1211, a measure that would formally expunge both of Donald Trump's impeachments from the official record of the House of Representatives.
The resolution, which has drawn more than 20 Republican co-sponsors and the backing of House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, would declare both sets of impeachment articles voided "as if such Articles had never passed the full House of Representatives." It marks the most aggressive congressional attempt yet to reverse what its supporters call a pair of politically engineered proceedings built on bad evidence and broken procedure.
Issa introduced the measure in April. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where Jordan chairs proceedings. The resolution targets both the 2019 impeachment, which centered on Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the 2021 impeachment following the January 6 Capitol breach. Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times.
The effect would be symbolic rather than legal. As the Washington Examiner reported, the resolution would not carry binding legal force but would represent the House using its institutional authority over its own records to repudiate the two proceedings. Legal scholars remain divided on whether such an expungement holds constitutional weight or amounts to a political statement dressed in procedural clothing.
Issa framed the question in practical terms during a recent interview. He argued that because the Constitution grants the House the sole power of impeachment, the chamber also holds the power to correct its own record when the underlying basis collapses.
"The fact is that the Constitution doesn't spell out what to do when you've wrongfully indicted somebody... where do we go to unring this bell? And the answer is we go back to Congress."
The resolution draws heavily on newly declassified documents from the Director of National Intelligence. DNI Tulsi Gabbard has claimed those materials reveal what she described as a "coordinated effort" within the intelligence community to manufacture the basis for the first impeachment in 2019. That claim forms a central pillar of the resolution's argument that the original proceedings rested on fabricated or politically tainted intelligence.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has pointed to the same declassified material as a reason to act. Johnson told reporters that discussions about expungement have intensified in recent weeks as more of the underlying evidence has surfaced. Newsmax reported that Johnson described the impeachments as "sham" proceedings and called expungement "a priority."
"I think it makes a lot of sense the more the evidence comes out, the more we know they really were sham impeachments."
The second impeachment faces a different line of attack. The resolution challenges it on procedural grounds, noting that the 2021 articles moved from introduction to passage in just two days. Supporters argue the House held no fact witnesses and conducted no extended investigation before voting to impeach a president who was days from leaving office.
The president himself has endorsed the effort. Trump has spoken publicly about expungement and made clear he views both proceedings as illegitimate. As Just the News reported, the president has framed the push as a matter of correcting the record.
"It should be done because I did nothing wrong. It was a rigged deal, it was a whole rigged situation."
Trump's direct support gives the resolution political momentum that earlier, quieter expungement proposals lacked. With the president, the speaker, and the Judiciary Committee chairman all aligned, the question shifts from whether leadership wants it to whether the votes and the calendar cooperate.
Jim Jordan's involvement carries weight. As Judiciary chairman, he controls the committee through which the resolution must pass before reaching the House floor. Jordan issued a statement casting the resolution as a direct response to Democratic overreach. Fox News reported his comments framing the impeachments as a weaponized tool.
"Democrats weaponized impeachment against President Trump with politically motivated charges. We applaud Chairman Issa for leading the fight to expunge this sham from the record."
The resolution has attracted 23 Republican co-sponsors so far. That number signals real interest within the conference but falls well short of the majority needed for floor passage. Issa and his allies will need to bring along a much larger share of the Republican caucus, and some internal GOP skepticism has surfaced. Lawmakers who view the move as purely symbolic have questioned whether it merits floor time when the legislative calendar is already crowded.
The broader political environment around Trump, impeachment, and January 6 remains charged. CLN previously covered the resolution's introduction and the constitutional questions it raises about the House's power over its own institutional record.
The core legal debate is straightforward but unresolved. The House holds the sole power of impeachment under Article I of the Constitution. Supporters argue that power includes the authority to rescind its own prior acts, the same way a legislature can repeal a statute it previously passed.
Critics counter that impeachment is a completed constitutional act, not a piece of ordinary legislation. Once the House votes articles of impeachment and transmits them to the Senate for trial, the argument goes, the proceeding becomes part of the permanent constitutional record. No Congress has ever attempted to expunge an impeachment, so there is no precedent to settle the dispute.
The political climate surrounding Trump's legal battles extends well beyond impeachment. Former FBI Director James Comey's public confrontations with Trump and the broader intelligence community's role in the first impeachment remain flashpoints for conservatives who view the proceedings as part of a sustained institutional campaign against the president.
Issa has positioned the resolution as a remedy, not a reward. His argument rests on the idea that when the factual basis for an impeachment crumbles, the House has both the power and the obligation to act. Whether enough of his colleagues agree to move the measure through committee and onto the floor remains the open question.
Even with leadership support, the resolution faces calendar pressure. Johnson has signaled that action is unlikely before the midterm elections, when Republican members will be focused on campaigning rather than floor votes on symbolic measures. That timeline could push any vote into late 2026 or beyond, assuming Republicans hold the majority.
The January 6 Capitol breach continues to generate legal and political fallout across multiple fronts. Capitol officers have sued to block payouts from Trump's anti-weaponization fund, and the political divisions that surrounded the second impeachment have not faded.
If the resolution does reach a vote, it would need a simple majority to pass. Democrats would almost certainly oppose it unanimously, meaning Republicans could afford only a handful of defections from their own ranks. The 23 current co-sponsors represent a starting coalition, not a finished count.
Investigators and lawmakers continue to examine the intelligence failures and procedural shortcuts that Issa's resolution targets. The political atmosphere around impeachment has generated its own set of legal consequences, from arrests to investigations to institutional reckonings that remain unresolved.
The resolution sits in Jordan's committee. He has not announced a markup date or a timeline for hearings. The Judiciary Committee could hold hearings to build the public case, call witnesses who can speak to the declassified intelligence, and pressure wavering Republicans to sign on. Or the resolution could sit in committee indefinitely, a statement of intent without a path to completion.
Issa, Jordan, Johnson, and Trump have all placed their markers. The question now is whether the Republican conference treats expungement as a governing priority or a talking point. The answer will say as much about the party's willingness to use institutional power as it does about the impeachments themselves.
Two impeachments, two Senate acquittals, and now a resolution that asks the House to admit it got both of them wrong. Whether Congress has the constitutional muscle to erase its own record is an open question. Whether it has the political will is the one that matters first.
