[Nikki Haley’s exit from the presidential race](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/06/us/haley-out-trump-election-updates) this morning all but assures former President Donald Trump of the Republican nomination, in a contest that has been notably lacking in suspense. But that wasn’t always the case. As recently as a year ago, less than half of Republican voters in FiveThirtyEight’s [polling average](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/) named Trump their preferred candidate. Was that unsettled landscape an illusion? Or were there moments along Trump’s road to victory that could have led to another outcome? I put this thought experiment to several political observers. They considered several moments that loom large in retrospect, starting in the final days of Trump’s presidency, and discussed how things might have gone differently. One scenario would have unambiguously changed the course of the election: a Senate conviction of Trump after his impeachment in the House of Representatives over his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which would have paved the way for his disqualification from ever running again. Initially, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, [entertained the idea of supporting impeachment](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/politics/mcconnell-backs-trump-impeachment.html). He told associates he was pleased that Democrats were moving to impeach Trump, believing that it would make it easier to purge him from the party. But when the decisive moment arrived, he [voted to acquit Trump](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/mcconnell-trump-impeachment-acquittal.html), who escaped conviction in the Senate by 10 votes. (McConnell [endorsed Trump today](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/us/politics/mcconnell-endorses-trump.html).) The Senate vote was an important early indication that the Republican elites who would have been happy for Trump to fade from the political scene were not going to take matters into their own hands, hoping instead that Republican voters would do the job. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F06%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-nomination-republican-candidate.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F06%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-nomination-republican-candidate.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F06%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-nomination-republican-candidate.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F06%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-nomination-republican-candidate.html).

Facing the prospect that they may never be able to impeach President Biden, House Republicans are exploring a pivot to a different strategy: issuing criminal referrals against him and those close to him. In recent weeks, a political and factual reality has set in on Capitol Hill. Despite their subpoenas and depositions, House Republicans have been unable to produce any solid evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden and lack the votes in their own party to charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment. Instead, top G.O.P. lawmakers have begun strategizing about making criminal referrals against Mr. Biden, members of his family and his associates, essentially sending letters to the Justice Department urging prosecutors to investigate specific crimes they believe may have been committed. The move would be largely symbolic, but it would allow Republicans in Congress to save face while ending their so far struggling impeachment inquiry. It has the added appeal for the G.O.P. of aligning with former President Donald J. Trump’s vow to prosecute Mr. Biden if he wins the election. And it would avoid a repeat of the humiliating process House Republicans, who have a tiny and dwindling majority, went through last month with the impeachment of Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary. After [initially falling short of the votes to impeach Mr. Mayorkas](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/politics/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment.html), Republicans barely succeeded on the second try, only to realize that the Democratic-controlled Senate [was poised to quickly acquit him](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/us/politics/mayorkas-impeachment-republicans.html) — or even dismiss the charges without a trial. “There’s nothing that I’ve heard in the last couple of weeks that says that we are anywhere close to having the votes” for impeachment, said Representative Kelly Armstrong, Republican of North Dakota and the author of [the resolution authorizing the impeachment investigation.](https://armstrong.house.gov/media/press-releases/armstrong-introduces-impeachment-inquiry-resolution) Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F14%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fbiden-impeachment-republicans-criminal-referrals.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F14%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fbiden-impeachment-republicans-criminal-referrals.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F14%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fbiden-impeachment-republicans-criminal-referrals.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F03%2F14%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fbiden-impeachment-republicans-criminal-referrals.html).

A White House spokesperson poured cold water on Republicans’ stated intention to invite Joe Biden to testify in public in his own impeachment hearings, lamenting “a sad stunt” and telling the rightwing congressman steering the effort: “Call it a day, pal.” James Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chair of the House oversight committee, has led attempts to impeach the president over alleged corruption involving the business dealings of his son [Hunter Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hunter-biden). At the end of a long hearing on Wednesday, Comer said: “In the coming days I will invite President Biden to the oversight committee to provide his testimony and explain why his family received tens of millions of dollars … We need to hear from the president himself.” Ian Sams, the White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, responded swiftly and brutally. “LOL,” Sams [wrote](https://twitter.com/IanSams46/status/1770577655798091802), adding a face-palm emoji. He added: “Comer knows 20-plus witnesses have testified that \[Joe Biden\] did nothing wrong. He knows that the hundreds of thousands of pages of records he’s received have refuted his false allegations. This is a sad stunt at the end of a dead impeachment. Call it a day, pal.” Hunter Biden, who has [pleaded not guilty](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/11/hunter-biden-arraignment-federal-tax-charges-los-angeles) to federal tax and gun charges, has [testified](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/18/hunter-biden-house-republicans-private-deposition) in private. So has [James Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/21/james-biden-republicans-impeachment-smirnov), the president’s brother. Wednesday’s hearing featured two Republican witnesses, both former associates of Hunter Biden. Tony Bobulinski appeared in person. Jason Galanis appeared by video link [from prison](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5110955/hunter-biden-business-associate-jason-galanis-testifies-prison) in Alabama, where he is serving a near-16-year [sentence](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/jason-galanis-sentenced-manhattan-federal-court-multiple-securities-fraud-schemes) for fraud. Another key source for Republicans, [Alexander Smirnov](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/14/company-paying-fbi-informant-trump-connections), was recently [imprisoned](https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-alexander-smirnov-detention-fbi-informant-0069256e9606617f890d0cf6771983ab) in Nevada after being charged with lying to the FBI about supposed corruption involving the Biden family. Smirnov has also been [linked](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexander-smirnov-fbi-informant-bidens-fraudster-in-prior-case/) to Russian intelligence. On Wednesday, Bobulinski and Galanis claimed Joe Biden was involved in family business activities, though a meeting described by Bobulinski took place in 2017, after Biden left office as vice-president and years before he beat Donald Trump to become president. Democrats called Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American businessman who worked with Rudy Giuliani on Trump’s attempts to find dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine, efforts that led to the first of two Trump impeachments. “The only information ever pushed on the Bidens and Ukraine has come from one source and one source only: Russia and Russian agents,” Parnas said. Amid grandstanding from members of both parties, Democrats sought to persuade the watching public the Republican impeachment effort was dead. “Our colleagues now are apparently preparing to save face by ending the impeachment farce with criminal referrals,” said Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the oversight committee. “But criminal referrals require evidence of crimes. And the only crimes we have seen are those of the GOP’s own star witnesses.” The attempt to impeach Joe Biden, Raskin said, had become “perhaps the most spectacular failure in the history of congressional investigations”. In his pushback efforts, Sams also cited commentators’ responses. Among them was Charlie Sykes, an anti-Trump Republican who [spoke to MSNBC](https://twitter.com/IanSams46/status/1770564778320097342). “What happened today was truly amazing even by our standards,” Sykes said. “It is one thing to say that this thing is falling apart but that actually understates how horrifically bad this is. “This was dumb and dumber.”

Alejandro Mayorkas is not guilty of a [high crime or misdemeanour](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/), the Republican senator Mitt Romney said, making clear he will not vote to remove the US homeland security secretary from office if his impeachment goes to a trial. “Secretary Mayorkas is following the position of his party and of the president who was elected,” Romney, from Utah and his party’s nominee for president in 2012, told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday. “We have pointed out that President Biden is for open borders, as are the Democrats, and Mayorkas is simply following that policy. It’s the wrong policy, it has a huge damaging effect on the country – but it’s not a [high crime or misdemeanour](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/).” Republicans have zeroed in on undocumented migration and the southern border as campaign issues in an election year. House Republicans impeached Mayorkas [in February](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/14/alejandro-mayorkas-first-impeachment-history) but have not yet formally sent the articles of impeachment across the Capitol to the Senate. On Tuesday, John Kennedy, a Republican senator from Louisiana, [told reporters](https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1777780546908626987) that process would now be delayed until Monday. Under article two, section four of the US [constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-2/ALDE_00000699/), “the president, vice-president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours”. Debate over what exactly constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanours” is a constant of US political life. Impeachment is meant to be rare: from the founding until Donald Trump only two presidents were impeached and both, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were acquitted at trial. Donald Trump, however, was impeached twice: first for seeking to blackmail Ukraine for dirt on political rivals, second for inciting an insurrection, the attack on Congress of 6 January 2021. Romney was the only Republican to vote to convict both times. Now a lonely anti-Trump Republican voice, he will quit Congress this year. Democrats control the Senate, making conviction and removal of Mayorkas a near impossibility. But Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, must still decide what to do. Republicans are pressing for a trial. Schumer has indicated Democrats will do so, though they do not have to. Romney said: “Precedent is a matter of interpretation in this case. There have been impeachments that have been brought forward that did not go to trial in part because the people left office.” The last impeachment of a cabinet official concerned William Belknap, secretary of war to President Ulysses S Grant, in 1876. Belknap resigned, was tried anyway on charges of corruption, and acquitted. Romney did not say if he would vote to table the articles of impeachment, thereby avoiding a trial. “What does one do will depend on what the legal options are,” he said. “When to vote and how is uncertain at this stage. I believe a high crime or misdemeanour has not been alleged.”

Senate Democrats on Wednesday dismissed the impeachment case brought by House [Republicans](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/republicans) against Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, on grounds that the charges failed to meet the bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” outlined in the constitution as a basis for removing an official from office. In a pair of party-line votes, Democrats held that two articles alleging Mayorkas willfully refused to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and breached the public trust with his statements to Congress about the high levels of migration at the US southern border with Mexico were unconstitutional. On the first article, the Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, voted “present”. Democrats then voted 51-49 to adjourn the trial, just one day after House Republicans [presented](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/16/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment) the articles to the Senate. Chuck Schumer, the senate majority leader, moved to dismiss the charges outright, arguing that a cabinet official cannot be removed from office for implementing the policies of the administration he serves. “It is beneath the dignity of the Senate to entertain this nakedly partisan exercise,” Schumer said in a floor speech opening Wednesday’s session. [Constitutional scholars,](https://www.justsecurity.org/91123/constitutional-law-scholars-on-the-impeachment-proceedings-against-secretary-of-homeland-security-alejandro-mayorkas/) including [conservative legal experts](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-jonathan-turley-comes-out-against-house-republicans-impeaching-dhs-secretary-mayorkas/), have said the Republicans’ impeachment case is deeply flawed and weakens Congress’s most powerful tool for holding despots and delinquents to account. But Republicans pushed ahead, arguing that Mayorkas’ handling of the southern border warranted a historic rebuke. “This process must not be abused. It must not be short-circuited,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said, imploring Democrats to hold a full trial. “History will not judge this moment well.” After the Senate convened as a court of impeachment, Schumer offered his plan to hold votes to dismiss the two articles of impeachment after limited debate. Senator Eric Schmitt, a Republican of Missouri, immediately objected to Schumer’s proposal and accused the Democratic leader of “setting our constitution ablaze” by seeking to dispense with the charges against Mayorkas. The majority leader then called for votes to dismiss the trial, setting off a series of procedural maneuvers by Republicans to delay the proceedings, all of which were rejected 51-49 by the Democratic majority. Had they moved to a trial, Republicans still would have lacked the support of two-thirds of the Senate that is needed to convict and remove Mayorkas from office. Mayorkas has denied wrongdoing, defending the work of his agency as it grapples with soaring migration and a refusal by Congress to act. “As they work on impeachment, I work in advancing the missions of the Department of Homeland Security. That’s what I’ve done throughout this process,” Mayorkas said on Wednesday during an appearance on CBS to discuss a new federal initiative to combat online abuse of children. Democrats cast the impeachment effort as election-year political theater designed to draw attention to the situation at the border, one of the president’s biggest liabilities. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has made immigration the centerpiece of his campaign for the White House. “The impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas has nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors and everything to do with helping Donald Trump on the campaign trail,” Schumer added on Wednesday. He charged Republicans instead to join Democrats in passing the bipartisan Senate border bill aimed they derailed at Trump’s behest. Some Senate Republicans have expressed deep skepticism of the impeachment effort. But conservatives have cried foul and are preparing to deploy a series of procedural tactics in an effort to delay the vote ending the trial without arguments. “What Senator Schumer is going to do is fatuous, it is fraudulent and it is an insult to the Senate and a disservice to every American citizen,” said John Kennedy, Republican Senator of Louisiana, at a press conference on Tuesday. By a single vote, House Republicans impeached Mayorkas in February for his handling of the border. It was the first time in nearly 150 years that a cabinet secretary was impeached. But Mike Johnson delayed the transfer of the articles for several weeks, initially to allow the chambers more time to complete work on government funding legislation. Upon returning from a two-week recess, the House speaker again postponed the transfer at the request of Senate Republicans, who requested more time to prepare. The outright dismissal of the charges, without the opportunity to argue their case, was yet another setback for House Republicans, plagued by internal drama and a vanishingly thin majority. In a joint statement, House Republican leaders said: “The American people will hold Senate Democrats accountable for this shameful display.” The White House, meanwhile, applauded Senate Democrats for dispensing with what it called a “baseless” case. “President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas will continue doing their jobs to keep America safe and pursue actual solutions at the border, and Congressional Republicans should join them, instead of wasting time on baseless political stunts while killing real bipartisan border security reforms,” said the White House spokesperson Ian Sams. The proceedings began at 1pm, when Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, administered the oath of office to the Senate president pro tempore Patty Murray, a Democrat of Washington. Each senator was sworn in as a juror and signed their name in an oath book. “Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!” the sergeant-at-arms proclaimed, reminding senators that they are to “keep silent on pain of imprisonment” for the duration of the trial. Had the Senate moved to an impeachment trial, it would be the third time in five years. Trump was impeached twice during his presidency, first over his dealings with Ukraine and later over his involvement in the January 6 assault on the US Capitol. He was acquitted both times by Senate Republicans.

/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/73286141/2147867598.0.jpg) Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before the House Homeland Security Committee about the fiscal year 2025 budget on April 16, 2024. Allison Bailey/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images [Republicans’ political impeachment stunt](https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/2/14/24072478/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-house-republicans) against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas came to a head this week in the Senate, with lawmakers in the upper chamber voting to dismiss the charges. On Tuesday, House Republicans sent two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas to the upper chamber, and on Wednesday, senators were sworn in as jurors for a trial. The articles accuse Mayorkas of failing to enforce immigration laws, making false statements to [Congress](https://www.vox.com/congress), and obstructing oversight into DHS policies, all charges he denies. On Wednesday, the Senate rejected both articles, voting 51-48 along party lines to deem the first “unconstitutional” and 51-49 to dismiss the second article and adjourn the trial before it even really began. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted present on the first article. This is the first impeachment trial of a Cabinet secretary in more than a century. It’s likely to be remembered not as a historic moment of political accountability but as a marker of how polarized Congress has become over the last decade. The swift conclusion of the proceedings marks a win for Democrats and the [Biden administration](https://www.vox.com/joe-biden), who denounced the impeachment effort as a sham and a waste of resources. Democrats have long said that the behavior Mayorkas is accused of does not qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the legal threshold for impeachment. Republicans, meanwhile, wanted to drag the process out in order to draw more attention to the issue of immigration, and to use the proceedings as a platform to criticize the Biden administration’s immigration policies. Mayorkas oversees border security and asylum as DHS secretary, so going after him created an opportunity to focus on these subjects and to make election-year promises to voters that the GOP will fix issues at the border if it come back into power. These efforts come as immigration has become a more [potent campaign flash point](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration-emerges-key-2024-wedge-issue-trump-vulnerability/story?id=106635907) this year because of the [surge in migration](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/29/us/us-mexico-border-migration/index.html) the US has experienced[.](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/29/us/us-mexico-border-migration/index.html) ### The “trial” showdown, briefly explained In February, the House voted to impeach Mayorkas after almost a year of hearings and investigations. Republicans argued that he did not properly enforce immigration laws, citing, in one case, [the decision to release migrants](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4600362-mayorkas-impeachment-dismissed-trial/#:~:text=The%20House%20articles%20embraced%20an,statutes%20Republicans%20say%20Mayorkas%20violated.) after they arrived at the southern border. In fact, that’s an established practice followed by multiple administrations, in part because the US does not have sufficient space to detain people as they await immigration hearings. Republicans also said that Mayorkas had made false statements to Congress because he testified that the border was “secure,” and that he blocked oversight by failing to respond to subpoenas and offer sufficient access to his office. Mayorkas has [pushed back against the charges,](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/01/DHS-Letter-to-CHS-1-30-24.pdf) noting that his approach may differ from that of Republicans, but he’s been committed to immigration enforcement and has worked to comply with Congress’s oversight of the agency by providing testimony and documents. [Many Constitutional law experts](https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impeachment-hearing-criticized/) also said Republicans had not shown that the charges reached a legal bar for impeachment, and that they instead seemed to be founded on policy disagreements. “If allegations like this were sufficient to justify impeachment, the separation of powers would be permanently destabilized,” wrote top scholars, including Harvard’s Laurence Tribe and Berkeley’s Erwin Chemerinsky, [in a January letter](https://www.justsecurity.org/91123/constitutional-law-scholars-on-the-impeachment-proceedings-against-secretary-of-homeland-security-alejandro-mayorkas/). The first phase of the Senate trial on Wednesday took place because the upper chamber needed to fulfill its constitutional duty. Following a House impeachment, the Senate’s job is to hear the charges and determine whether the person should be convicted. If an official is convicted — which requires a two-third majority vote — they would then be removed from their position. The Senate also has the option to dismiss, or table, the impeachment articles if a simple majority votes to do so. Ultimately, that’s what happened on both articles against Mayorkas, though it wasn’t without some drama. During the process, Republicans were able to force additional votes on “points of order,” or procedural motions regarding how the impeachment should move forward. They used this platform to slam Democrats repeatedly for not holding a full trial like those seen during the impeachment proceedings of former Presidents [Donald Trump](https://www.vox.com/donald-trump) and Bill Clinton and to try to delay the trial to a later date. The GOP points of order all largely failed on party lines. ### The impeachment is political messaging in a campaign year The impeachment itself is part of a broader GOP strategy to keep the focus on immigration as Republicans campaign on border security ahead of this year’s presidential election. It’s a strategy that’s worked for them before, including in 2016, when Trump made building a wall at the southern border a central promise of his campaign. The general public has also historically viewed Republicans as more trustworthy on border security than Democrats. [A September 2023 NBC News poll](https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/poll-republicans-advantages-immigration-crime-economy-rcna117054) found that 50 percent of voters trust Republicans on this issue, compared to 20 percent who trust Democrats. Immigration has been especially resonant this year because there’s been a [high number of unauthorized crossings](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/record-number-migrant-border-crossings-december-2023/) at the southern border as global displacement has increased and [as instability in some South American countries](https://abcnews.go.com/International/inside-deteriorating-conditions-forcing-south-american-migrants-flee/story?id=106633665) has forced people to flee. State Republican leaders, including [Govs. Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/28/23528510/migrant-bus-christmas-harris-dc-abbott), have drawn attention to this development by busing and flying migrants to Democrat-led cities such as New York City and Chicago. Democratic leaders, including [New York City Mayor Eric Adams](https://www.vox.com/24063986/cities-migrant-crisis-border-overwhelmed-shelters) and [Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson](https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/04/08/biden-migrant-work-permits), have kept the focus on the influx of migrants as they’ve sought help from the federal government and [imposed harsh eviction policies](https://www.vox.com/24112835/chicago-migrant-evictions-homeless-shelters). In response to the Mayorkas impeachment, Democratic lawmakers have called Republicans’ focus on the issue [disingenuous](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/29/democrats-mayorkas-impeachment-misdemeanors), as GOP leaders, [including Trump](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4459861-trump-praises-collapse-of-bipartisan-border-deal/), have opposed efforts to pass bipartisan immigration reforms that could help address some of these challenges. As a result of the attention it’s received in recent months, immigration has become a top issue in key swing states that Republicans hope to flip in order to win back the presidency and retake certain Senate seats. [A March 2024 Wall Street Journal poll](https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/election-2024-immigration-issue-voters-84916a17) found that immigration was one of voters’ top two issues in seven key swing states, including Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada. According to research from [political scientists Douglas Kriner and Eric Schickler](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1017/S0022381613001448), approaches like this have successfully dented presidents’ approval ratings in the past. The researchers found, for example, that if lawmakers spent 20 days per month on investigative hearings, the president’s approval rating could see a commensurate decline of 2.5 percent in that time. But while the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas was designed to cast negative attention on the Biden administration as Trump navigates countless legal scandals of his own, Senate Democrats’ quick dismissal has dulled much of its impact.

  An official Senate photographs shows senators taking the oath at the start of the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday. The U.S. Senate The Senate has rejected [both articles of impeachment](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245249027/mayorkas-impeachment-trial-senate-border-debate) against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, swiftly ending the trial triggered by the House's narrow [vote to impeach in February](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1230977868/house-impeachment-mayorkas-border). The articles charged Mayorkas with willfully ignoring the law and breaching the public's trust. Democrats called the opposition a policy dispute, and said it did not rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors," as required for impeachment. Republicans say Mayorkas is refusing to enforce immigration laws. "By doing what we just did, we have in effect, ignored the directions of the House, which were to have a trial," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell after senators killed the second article. "No evidence, no procedure. It's not a proud day in the history of the Senate." In a press conference after the trial, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he felt "very strongly that we had to set a precedent that impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements." He said the Senate had to ward against partisan impeachments. "If we allowed that to happen, it would set a disastrous precedent for Congress," he said. "Anytime the House would want to just shut the Senate down, they could send over another impeachment resolution." House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters he was "deeply disappointed" that the Senate dismissed the charges, saying "there should have been a full trial." He said Mayorkas was "probably the least effective and I think most dangerous, in terms of his policy implementations, of any cabinet secretary in the history of the United States." Johnson predicted there would be a "reckoning" over the border issue in the November election.   House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and their fellow Republican impeachment managers walk back through the U.S. Capitol Rotunda after transmitting articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate on Tuesday. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images The Biden administration said the Democratic-led Senate made the right call and dismissed Republican efforts to attack Mayorkas unfounded. "Today's decision by the Senate to reject House Republicans' baseless attacks on Secretary Mayorkas proves definitively that there was no evidence or Constitutional grounds to justify impeachment," said Department of Homeland Security Spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg. Republicans in both chambers are eager to put the issue of border security front and center during this election year. President Biden's handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border remains a weak spot politically for him, according to [recent public opinion polls](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/03/1242285012/biden-trump-2024-election-poll).

Media caption, Watch: What led to Mayorkas' historic impeachment... in two minutes **The US Senate has voted to kill impeachment charges against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Majorkas, sparing him a trial in the chamber.** It was the first time in almost 150 years, and only the second time in US history, the Senate had considered the impeachment of a cabinet secretary. If two-thirds of the chamber had approved, Mr Mayorkas would have been removed from office. He was accused of refusing to enforce immigration law. Mr Mayorkas was also charged by the US House of Representatives with breaching "the public trust" by making false statements during congressional testimony. In near-party line votes on Wednesday, senators dismissed the two articles of impeachment filed by the House two months ago. The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the result. The agency's statement said the vote to dismiss "proves definitively that there was no evidence or Constitutional grounds to justify impeachment". Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer had proposed a process by which Republicans would be allowed to make speeches and offer procedural motions before Democrats would forge ahead with in a vote to dismiss the charges. When Republicans objected, demanding a full trial on the merits of the Mayorkas case, Mr Schumer, a New York Democrat, moved to force a vote that effectively dismissed the first impeachment charge. "We gave your side an opportunity," Mr Schumer said. "Your side objected. We are moving forward." The Republicans made several unsuccessful attempts to delay the vote, which were blocked by the 51 Democrats in the chamber. In the end, all Democrats voted to dismiss the first impeachment charge. All but one of the 49 Republicans objected, with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski abstaining. The process repeated itself with the second impeachment charge, although Ms Murkowski joined her Republican colleagues. The chamber then voted 51-49 to formally end the impeachment trial proceedings less than four hours after the 100 senators took the oath to serve as jurors. Republicans had hoped to use the impeachment trial to call attention to what they have characterised as the failings of the Biden administration's immigration policy and the surge of undocumented migrants who have crossed the US-Mexico border in recent years. They expressed outrage at Mr Schumer's quick move to end the Senate's part in the constitutional impeachment process in only a matter of hours. They said it broke with tradition and set a bad precedent for future impeachment proceedings. "If the Senate held a full impeachment trial, the Border crisis evidence would gut the Biden administration like a fish," Republican Senator John Kennedy posted on social media before the vote. "Senator Schumer won't even let the House make its case, no matter how much it blows up the Senate." Former US President Donald Trump was impeached by the Democratic-controlled House of Representative twice during his presidency. Both times he was acquitted by the Senate after full trials. Senate Republicans had attempted to dismiss the charges against Mr Trump before his first impeachment trial - the same tactic used by Mr Schumer on Wednesday - but their efforts were unsuccessful. Democrats, for their part, said that the Republican-controlled House, which impeached Mr Mayorkas in February by a one-vote margin after a previous attempted failed, was abusing the impeachment process. "This is the least legitimate, least substantive and most politicised impeachment trial ever in the history of the United States," Mr Schumer said. "Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements." Public opinion polls show that immigration is one of the top issues concerning American voters in advance of November's presidential and congressional elections. Earlier this year, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate had negotiated a compromise package to reform immigration law and provide more funds for border security. The effort failed, however, after Mr Trump and conservative Republicans argued the legislation did not go far enough and was designed to help Democrats defuse the matter as a campaign issue. Republicans are sure to cite the decision by Democrats not to allow a full impeachment trial as evidence that the party does not want to address immigration. They may use it on the campaign trail, particularly against Democratic senators running for re-election in more conservative-leaning states. * [Immigration](/news/topics/c770z2d9v15t) * [US immigration](/news/topics/cljevyzxlelt) * [US politics](/news/topics/cwnpxwzd269t) * [United States](/news/topics/cx1m7zg01xyt)

Senate Republicans outraged at Democrats’ quick move to kill the impeachment of Alejandro N. Mayorkas without a trial warn that the precedent set could give rise to a nightmare scenario for Democrats in the future. It would go something like this: Democrats in control of the House move to impeach and remove an out-of-control Republican president. Republicans who lead the Senate label the charges woefully flawed and well below the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard established in the Constitution. They dispose of the counts without so much as a hint of a trial. While names weren’t being named, it was lost on absolutely no one on Capitol Hill that the alignment of a Democratic House, a Republican Senate and a Republican president is at least conceivable next year, with the White House possibly occupied by the already twice-impeached Donald J. Trump and both chambers potentially under new management. Republicans urged Democrats to pay heed. Democrats’ decision to [dismiss the impeachment charges without an airing of the case](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/us/politics/johnson-ukraine-israel-aid-house.html) “means the next time a president is impeached by the House, that a majority in the Senate of the same political party as the president could just refuse to try the case,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and one of two men seeking to be the party leader in the next Congress. Democrats say it was Republicans who were abusing the once-rare and deadly serious process of impeachment by using it to try to remove an administration official over a policy disagreement on immigration and border security. The real mistake, they argue, would have been to treat the case Republicans brought against the homeland security secretary as legitimate, rather than a thinly veiled attempt to amplify border security as a political issue and create chaos in the Senate. “If we start cheapening impeachment, which is what they’ve done by letting a policy issue become impeachment, there will be impeachment all the time,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said in an interview. “It will allow the House to tie up the Senate.” Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F18%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fmayorkas-impeachment-precedent.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F18%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fmayorkas-impeachment-precedent.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F18%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fmayorkas-impeachment-precedent.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F18%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fmayorkas-impeachment-precedent.html).

In the folk wisdom of recent American politics, Donald Trump is a figure of herculean invulnerability to traditional scandal. What lands as a crippling blow to most politicians leaves nary a scratch on Trump, who effortlessly deflected the slings and arrows of the 2016 presidential campaign and paid no discernible price for the “Access Hollywood” tape, his racism or his general incoherence. As the tribune of a discontented, “forgotten” people, this folk wisdom goes, Trump draws strength from efforts to hold him accountable. To try to halt Trump’s march is to make him more popular, and more powerful, than he was before. We saw this view of Trump at work in the run-up to his first impeachment. “Why Democrats’ Attempts to Rein in Trump With Impeachment Could Make His Presidency Stronger,” [declared](https://time.com/5751532/why-democrats-attempts-to-rein-in-trump-with-impeachment-could-make-his-presidency-stronger/) Time magazine on the eve of the House impeachment vote in 2019. We saw this view again, in 2021, after Trump was acquitted by the Senate following his second impeachment. “Trump,” [wrote The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/13/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-analysis-acquittal), “always thrived on the principle that what does not kill him makes him stronger.” At the moment, Trump is on trial for falsifying business records as part of his attempt to suppress public knowledge of his affair with Stormy Daniels, a porn star. As part of their case against the former president, prosecutors for the state of New York have accused Trump of spearheading an effort to catch and kill stories that might have undermined his 2016 bid for the White House. If convicted on any of the 34 felony counts arrayed against him, Trump — the first former president in American history to be criminally prosecuted — could face up to four years in prison. Trump could even go to jail now, if he continues to violate the gag order imposed by the judge, Juan M. Merchan. Strangely, as the trial unfolds and a prostrate, palpably demoralized Trump awaits his fate, the folk wisdom about his supposed invulnerability has [re-entered the bloodstream](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/hush-money-trial-could-help-trump-2024-presidential-race-2024-04-16/) of our political discourse. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F10%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-trial-not-invincible.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F10%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-trial-not-invincible.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F10%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-trial-not-invincible.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F10%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-trial-not-invincible.html).

A [Democratic](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/democrats) representative told the [US House](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/house-of-representatives) on Wednesday he was bringing articles of impeachment against [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) for his proposal to “[take over Gaza](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-plan-to-take-over-gaza-strip-netanyahu-visit)”. Trump’s plan, the [Texas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/texas) representative Al Green said, was a “dastardly deed” that amounted to ethnic cleansing. The aggressive move came as Democrats stepped up their resistance to the fledgling [Trump administration](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/trump-administration) and its barrage of chaotic, power-grabbing new policies that [many see as a coup](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/03/the-guardian-view-on-donald-trumps-power-grab-a-coup-veiled-by-chaos). Green, a firebrand politician who launched a number of unsuccessful attempts to impeach Trump during his first term in office, is unlikely to find much traction on his latest effort. Pete Aguilar, the No 3 House Democrat, told Politico on Wednesday that impeachment was [not an immediate focus](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/green-moves-to-impeach-trump-again-00202601) of his caucus. But it is evidence that more elected Democrats are finding their voice amid what critics say has been a [muted response so far](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/03/democrats-opposition-trump) to the extremes of Trump’s 16-day-old second presidency. The liberal advocacy group Call to Activism posted on X on Tuesday a [clip of the Maryland representative Jamie Raskin](https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1886798462219325832) suggesting he was also open to a new impeachment effort. “If you can find me two Republicans, I’ll go to work tomorrow,” Raskin said, referring to the governing party’s wafer-thin House majority. Green invoked the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr in lambasting Trump’s proposal to remove Palestinians from [Gaza](https://www.theguardian.com/world/gaza) and rebuild the war-torn territory as a US-owned “Riviera of the Middle East”. The plan has been globally condemned as “[outrageous](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-gaza-plan-global-stability-us-soldiers)”, “shameful” and “[illegal](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-official-says-trumps-remarks-about-taking-over-gaza-are-could-ignite-2025-02-05/)”. “Ethnic cleansing in [Gaza](https://www.theguardian.com/world/gaza) is not a joke, especially when it emanates from the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world,” he said. “And the prime minister of Israel should be ashamed, knowing the history of his people, to stand there and allow such things to be said. “Dr King was right. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and injustice in Gaza is a threat to justice in the United States of America. I rise to announce that the movement to impeach the president has begun. I rise to announce that I will bring articles of impeachment against the president for dastardly deeds proposed, and dastardly deeds done.” Green said the “impeachment movement is going to be a grass-up movement, not a top-down”, and that “when the people demand it, it will be done”. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/05/al-green-trump-impeachment-articles-gaza#EmailSignup-skip-link-11) Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion [ Donald Trump’s Gaza plan: the key takeaways ](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-gaza-strip-plan-take-over-move-palestinians-ownership) Trump was impeached twice during his first term, in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his [efforts to seek help from Ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/31/trump-impeachment-inquiry-timeline-key-events) in the following year’s presidential election; and [again in 2021](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-what-you-need-to-know) for inciting the January 6 Capitol riot following his defeat by Joe Biden. He was acquitted in the Senate on both occasions. “I know that it’s time for us to lay the foundation again,” Green said on Wednesday. “On some issues, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. On this issue, I stand alone, but I stand for justice.” This article was amended on 5 February 2025 because an earlier version misquoted Al Green as saying “desperate deeds”, rather than “dastardly deeds”.