President Donald Trump and his congressional allies are working to formally expunge both of his impeachments from the House record, a move that House Speaker Mike Johnson now calls "a priority" and one that has already drawn 23 Republican co-sponsors to a resolution introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa of California.
The effort, reported by Newsmax, has intensified in recent weeks as newly declassified material related to the first impeachment has given supporters fresh ammunition. But the timeline for action remains uncertain: people familiar with the matter say lawmakers are not expected to take up the measure until after the November midterm elections.
The House impeached Trump in 2019 over his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. It impeached him again in 2021 following the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol. The Senate acquitted him both times.
Issa introduced his resolution in April. Its language is blunt: both impeachments would be declared "expunged, as if such Articles had never passed the full House of Representatives." Twenty-three Republican co-sponsors have signed on.
Supporters argue that declassified documents from the Trump administration undermine the credibility of key witnesses in the first impeachment and bolster claims that the proceedings were politically motivated from the start. Conservative journalist John Solomon reported on the newly declassified material, and Trump shared clips on Truth Social featuring Solomon and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz discussing whether the information could serve as the basis for expungement.
Trump told The Wall Street Journal he supports the effort but has downplayed his own role in promoting it:
"It should be done because I did nothing wrong. It was a rigged deal, it was a whole rigged situation."
He added: "If they want to do it, I'm honored by it."
That framing, welcoming the push while letting Congress take the lead, tracks with how Trump has handled other legislative priorities. House Republicans have sometimes charted their own course on Trump-backed legislation, and the expungement effort appears to be one where the president is content to let allies carry the ball.
Speaker Johnson told The Wall Street Journal that he has spoken with Trump and with legal allies including Dershowitz and attorney Jay Sekulow about the push. His language left little doubt about where he stands.
"I think it makes a lot of sense the more the evidence comes out, the more we know they really were sham impeachments. We were saying it at the time, now we know. And they make a very compelling case that it should be expunged from the record, because it was a hyperpartisan attack job."
Johnson also called it "a priority and something that Congress should make right." At the same time, he acknowledged the issue is not at the top of Congress's agenda, a nod to the packed legislative calendar and the political calculations involved in timing such a vote.
Dershowitz, for his part, told The Wall Street Journal that "there are efforts to try to do that" with Trump's impeachments. In a clip Trump shared on Truth Social, the professor emeritus said: "I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done."
The legal question is straightforward in theory. The House sets its own rules and controls its own records. If a majority votes to declare a prior action void, there is no constitutional barrier preventing it, though the precedent would be novel and the political implications significant.
Retiring Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska offered a dissenting view. He called the effort "silly" and questioned the political wisdom behind it.
"Maybe they've given up on holding the majority? What happened is history."
Bacon's skepticism reflects a tension within the House Republican conference that surfaces on issue after issue. Twenty House Republicans recently broke ranks to pass a pro-union bill, bypassing GOP leadership entirely. The party's slim majority means any significant bloc of dissenters can stall or reshape legislation.
Whether the expungement resolution can hold enough Republican votes to pass remains an open question, especially if it comes to the floor after midterm elections that could shift the conference's composition in either direction.
The decision to delay a vote until after the midterms is telling. Members in competitive districts may not want to cast a vote that opponents could frame as backward-looking or partisan. Members in safe seats face no such risk and may see the vote as an easy win with the base.
House Republicans posted a record $47.1 million first-quarter fundraising haul, widening their financial advantage over Democrats. That kind of war chest gives leadership more room to maneuver on votes that carry political risk, but it does not eliminate the risk itself.
The 23 co-sponsors already attached to Issa's resolution suggest a solid base of support. But 23 is a long way from 218 in a chamber where even routine votes can fracture along ideological or tactical lines.
The renewed energy behind expungement tracks directly to the Trump administration's declassification of material related to the first impeachment investigation. Supporters say those documents show that key witnesses lacked credibility and that the case against Trump was built on a politically motivated foundation.
The specific contents of the declassified material are not detailed in available reporting. That gap matters. The strength of the expungement argument depends heavily on what those documents actually say, and whether they demonstrate procedural abuse or merely reflect the kind of partisan maneuvering that has accompanied every modern impeachment.
What is not in dispute: the Senate acquitted Trump both times. The constitutional process ran its course. Expungement would not change that outcome. It would, however, remove the formal stain of impeachment from the House record, a symbolic act with real political weight.
Even some Democrats have occasionally broken with their party on Trump-related matters, as when Sen. John Fetterman returned a blue slip for a Trump judicial nominee. But bipartisan support for expungement is nowhere in sight. This will be a Republican project or it will be nothing.
Critics will argue that expunging impeachments sets a dangerous precedent, that any future majority could simply erase the actions of a prior Congress it disagrees with. That concern is not frivolous on its face.
But the counterargument is equally direct. If an impeachment was conducted on a partisan basis, built on evidence that has since been undermined by declassified material, and resulted in acquittal by the body constitutionally charged with rendering judgment, what purpose does the permanent stain serve? The House has the power to govern its own proceedings. Correcting what a majority now views as an abuse of that power is not erasure, it is accountability applied in the other direction.
Johnson framed it in exactly those terms. He did not argue that impeachment should never happen. He argued that these impeachments were "hyperpartisan" and that the evidence now available makes the case for correction.
House Republicans have shown a willingness to cross party lines on certain issues, but expungement is unlikely to be one of them. The vote, when it comes, will test whether the conference can hold together on a measure that is as much about vindicating a president as it is about setting the record straight.
The timeline is clear enough: nothing before November. After that, the political landscape will determine whether Johnson brings the resolution to the floor and whether enough Republicans vote yes.
Trump has signaled his support without demanding action. Johnson has called it a priority without scheduling a vote. Issa has the resolution and 23 co-sponsors. Dershowitz and Sekulow are providing legal cover. The pieces are in place.
The question is whether Republicans will use them, or whether the effort will quietly fade into the long list of things Congress talks about but never does.
The Senate already said Trump was not guilty. Twice. If the House now believes its own prior votes were driven by partisan overreach rather than constitutional duty, it has every right to say so on the record. That is not rewriting history. It is finishing the argument the acquittals already started.
