Progressive Democrats have hit a wall in their latest push to impeach former President Donald Trump, this time over his recent military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. But the resistance isn’t coming from Republicans—it’s coming from inside their own party. Following the strike, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reignited calls for impeachment, claiming that Trump’s actions bypassed Congress and violated the Constitution. Her message spread quickly online, sparking a wave of support from progressive circles. But Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania wasted no time shutting the idea down. Speaking bluntly in a Fox News interview, he called the proposal “dead on arrival,”…
Progressive Democrats have hit a wall in their latest push to impeach former President Donald Trump, this time over his recent military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. But the resistance isn’t coming from Republicans—it’s coming from inside their own party.
Following the strike, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reignited calls for impeachment, claiming that Trump’s actions bypassed Congress and violated the Constitution. Her message spread quickly online, sparking a wave of support from progressive circles. But Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania wasted no time shutting the idea down. Speaking bluntly in a Fox News interview, he called the proposal “dead on arrival,” emphasizing that impeachment was not meant to be used as a political reflex. “He shouldn’t be impeached. She knows it. I know it. This isn’t going anywhere,” Fetterman said.
Trump’s surprise authorization of a high-impact bombing campaign on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities—including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—over the weekend stunned the international community and reignited debates over presidential war powers. In a nationally televised address, Trump justified the strikes by claiming they were necessary to “neutralize an immediate nuclear threat.” He insisted the action was defensive, not a declaration of war.
While national security hawks and Republican allies rallied behind Trump, calling the operation justified and within presidential authority, progressive leaders condemned it as unconstitutional. Ocasio-Cortez called the move “a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,” arguing that Trump sidestepped the legislative branch and endangered U.S. credibility.
This is not the first time Trump has faced impeachment calls, but it would be the third attempt—an unprecedented scenario in U.S. history. However, much of the Democratic leadership is distancing itself from AOC’s latest charge. Fetterman warned that repeated use of impeachment for political disagreements undermines the seriousness of the mechanism. “It shouldn’t be a knee-jerk response every time someone disagrees with policy,” he said, underscoring broader frustration within the party over how frequently impeachment is being wielded.
Even House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, though highly critical of the strike, stopped short of endorsing impeachment. He accused Trump of acting recklessly and failing to consult Congress but did not support removing him from office. White House officials countered that senior congressional leaders had been briefed prior to the attack, though Jeffries’s office denied this, claiming he was never contacted.
On the other side of the aisle, Republican leaders stood firm in their support. Vice President J.D. Vance defended Trump’s decision as a constitutional obligation to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Representative Mike Lawler pointed out that previous presidents—including Barack Obama—had authorized similar actions without facing impeachment calls. “Obama struck targets in Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and Libya, and no one blinked. But when Trump acts decisively, suddenly it’s unconstitutional?” Lawler argued.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson echoed those sentiments, saying Trump’s actions were not only lawful but necessary. “The world’s largest sponsor of terrorism cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. This was a precise, calculated mission that aligns with actions taken by past presidents from both parties,” Johnson said.
For many Americans—particularly older voters tired of the constant back-and-forth—the moment feels less about party politics and more about national security and constitutional clarity. The fundamental question now isn’t whether you like Trump, but whether presidents should have the power to act swiftly when immediate threats arise—or if they must always pause to wait for congressional approval, even when time is of the essence.
Impeachment, it seems, is not on the table. Moderates like Fetterman are steering the party away from what they see as political theater, pushing instead for oversight hearings and policy accountability. The divide between the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party continues to widen, especially as issues of war powers, executive authority, and constitutional limits become more prominent in the 2025 political landscape.
As the dust settles from the Iran strike, the debate is no longer just about Trump’s decision. It’s about the precedent it sets—and how much power a president should have in an increasingly unpredictable world.