Resolutions to Censure the President:
Procedure and History
Updated February 1, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45087

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

Summary
Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of
Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a
disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member
censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress.
Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight
conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the
Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases
unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly
“censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text.
Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usual y simple resolutions. These resolutions
are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under
the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation.
Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at
least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a
House committee report and an amendment to a resolution).
The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate
approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were
adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the
President.
In the remaining cases, resolutions remained in committee, without further consideration, or were
not adopted in a floor vote. Nevertheless, presidential censure attempts have become more
frequent since the Watergate era.
This report summarizes the procedures that may be used to consider resolutions of censure and
the history of attempts to censure the President (1st-116th Congresses). It also provides citations to
additional reading material on the subject.

Congressional Research Service

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

Definition of Censure
Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of
Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. Censure of a sitting Member of
Congress is a formal disciplinary action, which is authorized by the Constitution. Non-Member
censure, however, is not a disciplinary action, and it is not addressed in the Constitution. It is
simply a means to highlight conduct deemed by the House or Senate to be inappropriate or in
violation of the position held.
There is no uniform language used in resolutions to censure non-Members. This complicates
efforts to identify and classify al attempts to censure the President. The presidential censure
resolutions listed in this report contain variations of the words or phrases after the word resolved:
censure, condemn, unconstitutional, usurp, unauthorized, abuse of power, violation, or
disapproval.1 Early resolutions of censure (Andrew Jackson, 1834; Abraham Lincoln, 1864)
criticized the President for acting in “derogation” of the Constitution.2
Since the Nixon era, resolutions of censure have more frequently included the word censure in
the text. In most such instances, censure is paired with the word condemn. For instance, a recently
introduced resolution of censure, H.Res. 14 (117th Congress), “censures and condemns President
Donald J. Trump for his cal to the Georgia Secretary of State on January 2, 2021.”3
This report references other post-Nixon resolutions of presidential rebuke that do not use the
word censure, such as H.Res. 489 (116th Congress), the resolution agreed to by the House on July
16, 2019.4 That resolution condemned the President’s use of language directed at Members of
Congress, but it did not censure or condemn the President as an individual, so it is arguably not a
resolution of censure.

1 Secondary sources on presidential censure attempts include Merrill D. Peterson, The Great Triumvirate: Webster,
Clay, and Calhoun (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of
Am erican Dem ocracy, 1833-1845 (New York: Harper & Row, 1984); Remini, The House: The History of the House of
Representatives (New York: Smithsonian Books, 2006); Louis Fisher, Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and
the President, sixth ed. (Laurence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2014); and essays posted by the Senate Historical
Office (senate.gov) and the House Office of the Historian (house.gov). Primary sources in clude the House Journal,
Senate Journal, Congressional Globe, Annals of Congress, Register of Debates, Congressional Record, Congress.gov,
the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS), and other congressional documents accessed in
ProQuest Congressional.
2 T his report does not identify every pre-1972 resolution that criticized a President in the preamble (“whereas” clauses)
that preceded the word resolved. For an example of this type of resolution, see the House resolution targeting Preside nt
T heodore Roosevelt, which was agreed to by the House on January 8, 1909. T his resolution was submitted in response
to the President’s annual message to Congress, which implied that the House had adopted an amendment to prevent the
Secret Service from investigating Members. In the preamble, the resolution stated that the House considered “ the
language of the President in his message of December 8, 1908, unjustified and without basis of fact and that it
constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House.” T herefore, it resolved: “That the House, in the exercise of its
constitutional prerogatives, declines to consider any communication from any source which is not in its own judgement
respectful.” See Congressional Record, 60th Cong., 2nd sess. (8 January 1909): pp. 645-684.
3 H.Res. 14 (117th Congress), “ Censuring and condemning President Donald J. T rump for attempting to overturn the
results of the November 2020 presidential electio n in the State of Georgia.”
4 H.Res. 489 (116th Congress), “Condemning President T rump’s racist comments directed at Members of Congress.”
Also see H.Res. 494 (116th Congress), “ Condemning the false, inflammatory, and racially offensive statements made
by the President of the United States regarding four women of color who are duly elected Members of the One Hundred
Sixteenth Congress.”
Congressional Research Service

1

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

Congressional Consideration of Censure
Resolutions
Two Types of Censure Resolutions
There are two types of censure resolutions: those that target Members of Congress and those that
target executive or judicial branch officials. Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution grants each
chamber the ability to “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour.”5 Resolutions censuring a
Senator or Representative are based on this power.
In contrast, Congress has no disciplinary authority over the President except through
impeachment. Thus, presidential censure resolutions express the “sense of” the House and/or
Senate without additional legal implications.6
Both Member and non-Member censure resolutions are usual y simple resolutions.7 As such, they
do not have the force of law and are not signed by the President. However, the House and Senate
treat the two types of censure resolutions differently in a parliamentary sense.
Resolutions That Censure a Representative or a Senator
Simple resolutions that censure a Member of Congress for “disorderly behavior”—that is,
resolutions carrying out the function of disciplining a Member under the Constitution—are
privileged for consideration in both the House and Senate. In the House, privileged resolutions
have precedence over the regular order of business; they can be cal ed up on the floor when the
House is not considering another matter.8 In the Senate, the motions to proceed to privileged
resolutions are not debatable.”9
House censure resolutions general y qualify as questions of the privileges of the House under
Rule IX.10 In this context, the censure of a Representative would occur through a formal vote of
the House on a resolution disapproving of the Member’s conduct. Such resolutions include the
requirement that the offending Member stand in the wel of the House as the resolution of censure

5 “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member,” U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 5.
6 For more information, see CRS Report 98-825, “Sense of” Resolutions and Provisions, by Christopher M. Davis.
7 Most, but not all, presidential censure resolutions have been simple resolutions. Presidents Harry T ruman and Richard
Nixon were the subject of proposed concurrent resolutions of censure. (Concurrent resolutions must be adopted by both
chambers but do not have the force of law.) President Bill Clinton is the only known President to be the focus of joint
resolutions of censure. Had these joint resolutions passed, the President would have had to sign them, veto them, or
allow them to become law without his signature. See CRS Report 98-706, Bills and Resolutions: Exam ples of How
Each Kind Is Used, by Richard S. Beth.
8 See CRS Report 98-315, Privileged Business on the House Floor, by James V. Saturno.
9 See CRS Report RS21255, Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them? , by Richard
S. Beth and Mark J. Oleszek.
10 “A resolution recommending reprimand, censure, or expulsion of a Member presents a question of privilege, as does
one disapproving of the behavior of a Member inside or outside the Chamber. If reported by the Committee on Ethics
(or a derivation thereof), the resolution may be called up at any time after the committee has filed its report.” U.S.
Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives, prepared by T homas J.
Wickham, Parliamentarian, 114th Cong., 2nd Sess., 2017, H.Doc. 114-192 (Washington: GPO, 2017), sections 62-63, p.
29; CRS Report R44005, Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis, by Megan S. Lynch; CRS Report 98-
411, Questions of Privilege in the House, by James V. Saturno.
Congressional Research Service

2

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

is read aloud by the Speaker.11 (If the resolution reprimands a Member of the House without using
the term censure, this step is not taken.) The most recent instance of a Representative being
formal y censured in this way by the House occurred in 2010.12
In the Senate, the Select Committee on Ethics may recommend disciplinary action against a
Senator, including “censure, expulsion, or recommendation to the appropriate party conference
regarding such Member’s seniority or positions of responsibility.” The last time a Senator was
formal y censured by such a privileged resolution was in 1990.13
Resolutions That Censure an Executive or Judicial Branch Official
While resolutions censuring a Member of Congress are privileged in the respective chamber,
resolutions that censure, condemn, disapprove of, or express a loss of confidence in an executive
or judicial branch official are not privileged and do not enjoy a special parliamentary status. Non-
Member censure resolutions express the formal opinion of the House or Senate.14 Thus, they are
considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation.15
The last presidential censure resolution to receive congressional floor consideration occurred in
the Senate in 1912 (Wil iam Howard Taft). Al subsequent resolutions have been referred to
House or Senate committees without further action. Nevertheless, the following parliamentary
scenarios are possible when considering non-Member censure resolutions.
House Procedure
Should a House committee report a non-Member censure resolution, the full House may consider
it by unanimous consent, under the Suspension of the Rules procedure, or under the terms of a
special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House.16 If widespread
support exists for the censure resolution, unanimous consent or the Suspension of the Rules
procedure may be used. Otherwise, the resolution could be brought to the floor under a special
rule reported by the Committee on Rules. Al three of these parliamentary mechanisms require, at
a minimum, the support of the majority party leadership in order to be entertained.
If the censure resolution was not supported by the House majority party leadership, obtaining
floor consideration would likely be difficult. Members could try to employ the House discharge

11 Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and T homas J. Wickham Jr., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents, and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO: 2017), pp. 509-541, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
GPO-HPRACT ICE-115/pdf/GPO-HPRACT ICE-115-26.pdf.
12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Adjudicatory Subcommittee Hearing in the
Matter of Representative Charles B. Rangel Opening Statem ent of Chair Zoe Lofgren , 111th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
November 15, 2010, pp. 1-2, http://docs.house.gov/ethics/RangelChairOpeningStatement.pdf.
13 United States Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases: 1793 -1990, prepared by Anne M. Butler and Wendy
Wolff, U.S. Senate Historical Office, 103 rd Cong., 1st Sess., S.Doc. 103-33 (Washington: GPO, 1995).
14 See CRS Report RL34037, Congressional Censure and “No Confidence” Votes Regarding Public Officials, by
Richard S. Beth.
15 See CRS Report 98-825, “Sense of” Resolutions and Provisions, by Christopher M. Davis.
16 Under long-standing policies announced by the Speaker, such a unanimous consent request would have to be cleared
in advance by the bipartisan committee and floor leadership in order to be entertained. T he Suspension of the Rules
procedure lays aside any parliamentary barriers to considering the measure but requires a two -thirds vote for passage.
CRS Report 98-314, Suspension of the Rules in the House: Principal Features, by Elizabeth Rybicki, CRS Report 98-
354, How Special Rules Regulate Calling up Measures for Consideration in the House , by Richard S. Beth.
Congressional Research Service

3

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

rule (Rule XV, clause 2) to bring a censure resolution (or a special rule providing for its
consideration) to the chamber floor.17
Senate Procedure
In the Senate, a Member could make a unanimous consent request to consider a censure
resolution at the time it was submitted. If any Senator objected to this procedure, consideration of
the resolution would effectively be blocked.18
A Senator might instead submit the resolution for it to be referred to committee in the usual way.
The Senate committee might then report the censure resolution, al owing the measure to be cal ed
up on the floor by unanimous consent or by debatable motion.19 In either case, the resolution and
any preamble therein would each be separately debatable and amendable, including by non-
germane amendment.
If a Senator introduces an amendment that contains censorious language or attempts to alter a
resolution of censure, that amendment would also be subject to debate. As a result, without
unanimous consent, one or more cloture processes, requiring supermajority vote thresholds, might
be necessary in order to reach a final vote on censure language in the Senate.20
History of Presidential Censure Attempts, 1789-2020,
1st-116th Congresses
CRS identified 14 Presidents who experienced censure attempts while in office: 12 by resolutions
of censure, one via a House committee report, and another through an amendment to an unrelated
resolution. On four occasions, the House or Senate adopted resolutions that, in their introduced
form, charged the President with abuse of power. Otherwise, presidential censure resolutions have
remained in committee without further consideration or were not adopted in a floor vote.21

17 In order to discharge legislation from a committee, at least 218 Members must sign a discharge petition. See CRS
Report R45920, Discharge Procedure in the House, by Mark J. Oleszek.
18 Should there be an objection to the immediate consideration of such a resolution when it was submitted, the measure
would go “ over under the rule” and be placed on a special section of the Senate’s Calendar of Business dedicated to
such resolutions. Under current practice, simple resolutions that go “ over under the rule” in this way are effectively
moot and cannot be considered except by unanimous con sent . U.S. Congress, Senate, Riddick’s Senate Procedure
Precedents and Practices, prepared by Floyd M. Riddick and Alan S. Frumin, 101 st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1992, S.Doc. 101-
28 (Washington: GPO, 1992), pp. 957 -967. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-
RIDDICK-1992-93.pdf
19 See CRS Report RS21255, Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?, by Richard
S. Beth and Mark J. Oleszek.
20 When considering censure resolutions, three-fifths of all Senators (normally 60) must vote to invoke cloture. See
CRS Report RL30360, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, by Valerie Heitshusen and Richard S. Beth. In addition, a
Senator might try to trigger a vote in relation to censure language by making a motion to Suspend the Rules. When
voting on such a motion, the question before the Senate would be whether or not to lay aside any rules blocking floor
consideration of censure legislation. U.S. Congress, Senate, Riddick’s Senate Procedure Precedents and Practices,
prepared by Floyd M. Riddick and Alan S. Frumin, 101 st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1992, S.Doc. 101-28 (Washington: GPO,
1992), pp. 1266-1272, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-134.pdf.
21 With two exceptions, the resolutions that were not approved by the House or Senate were all referred to committee
with no further action. T he exceptions were: John Adams, 1800 (6 th Congress), defeated in the Committee of the
Whole; and, Ulysses S. Grant, 1871 (42nd Congress), tabled on the Senate floor.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 17 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

As stated earlier, there is no uniform language of censure. Therefore, the designation of censure is
somewhat subjective. The censure resolutions identified in this report either contained the word
censure or explicitly cited an al eged abuse of presidential power, following the word resolved.22
Such resolutions targeted the President as an individual rather than the President’s actions or
statements.
Prior to 1972, no identified House or Senate resolutions used the word censure in reference to the
President; instead, resolutions of censure used a range of “censorious” terms to charge the
President with inappropriate or unconstitutional conduct. Beginning with the Nixon
Administration, resolutions more commonly use the word censure in the text of the resolution.
The following sections provide additional information on each censure attempt, (1st through 116th
Congresses). The measures are also listed in Table 1.
Resolutions Adopted (1st-116th Congresses)
The four adopted censure-related resolutions were al simple resolutions.23 As such, they
expressed the “sense of” the respective chamber but did not have the force of law or contain any
disciplinary authority.
In two cases identified (Presidents Lincoln and Taft), the resolutions were amended on the
chamber floor so that they no longer clearly censured the President. In another case (President
Buchanan), the resolution’s language may have intended a lesser rebuke than censure. The fourth
case, President Andrew Jackson, remains the clearest case of presidential censure by resolution,
although his censure was subsequently expunged.
Andrew Jackson (1834)
The Jackson case stemmed from a dispute over the Second Bank of the United States. In 1832,
Jackson vetoed legislation to renew the bank’s charter. The following year, he instructed his
Secretary of the Treasury, Wil iam J. Duane, to begin removing the government’s deposits from
the bank. When Duane refused, Jackson replaced him with Attorney General Roger Taney in a
recess appointment. Taney subsequently followed Jackson’s instructions.24 At the start of the new
Congress, in December 1833, the pro-Bank Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, a leader of the anti-
Administration coalition, offered a resolution demanding that Jackson submit to Congress an
executive paper that related to the removal of deposits. (This message to the President’s Cabinet
had been printed in a newspaper but not formal y submitted to Congress.) Jackson refused to
provide the requested document.25 Two weeks later, on December 26, Clay submitted a censure
resolution condemning the actions of the President for replacing Duane for not removing the
deposits and another resolution finding Treasury Secretary Taney’s reasons for removing the
deposits to be “unsatisfactory and insufficient.”26

22 Censure resolutions were identified following a survey of secondary sources, including books on
presidential/congressional relationships. Primary source research included a review of congressional documents and
database searches using the keyword President with censure, condem n, abuse, disapprove, violation, Constitution,
unconstitutional, usurp, or unauthorized.
23 For more information about the types of resolutions, see CRS Report R46603, Bills, Resolutions, Nominations, and
Treaties: Characteristics and Exam ples of Use, by Jane A. Hudiburg.
24 Robert V. Remini, The Life of Andrew Jackson, abridged ed. (New York: Perennial Classics, 2001), pp. 262-270.
25 Senate Journal, 23rd Cong., 1st Sess. (December 2-June 30, 1833), pp. 40-42.
26 Senate Journal, p. 67.
Congressional Research Service

5

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

As later modified by Clay, the measure targeting the President resolved, “That the President, in
the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself
authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” On
March 28, 1834, after three months of intense debate, the Senate agreed to the censure resolution.
That April, Jackson submitted an “Executive protest,” which argued that the Senate’s censure of a
non-Senator was “wholly unauthorized by the Constitution, and in derogation of its entire spirit.”
The Senate countered, on May 7, with resolutions that cal ed the President’s protest itself, “a
breach of the privileges of the Senate,” which could not be recognized or “entered on the
Journals.” By early 1837, however, pro-Jackson Democrats had gained the Senate majority, and
they voted to remove the censure from chamber records. On January 16, the Secretary of the
Senate drew black lines around the original resolution in the Senate Journal, adding the words
expunged by order of the Senate.27
James Buchanan (1860)
On June 11, 1860, Representative Robert Hatton of Tennessee (Opposition Party) reported five
resolutions on behalf of the Committee on the Expenditures in the Navy Department, a select
committee appointed during the previous 35th Congress. Al five resolutions charged the Secretary
of the Navy, Isaac Toucey, with ethical violations related to military contracts. The fourth
resolution also reprimanded the President, al eging that the President and the Secretary awarded
contracts based on “party relations” and the “pending elections.” By doing so, the resolution
stated, “they have set an example dangerous to the public safety, and deserving the reproof of this
House.” However, the fifth resolution, targeting just Toucey, used the word censured to condemn
the Secretary’s appointment of an engineer with financial interests in Navy projects.28 Thus, it
could be argued that the House chose a weaker reprimand for the President.
On June 13, the House voted to adopt al five resolutions. The fourth resolution, targeting the
President and Secretary of the Navy, passed in a 106-61 vote.
Abraham Lincoln (1864)
On May 11, 1864, Senator Garret Davis of Kentucky (Unionist Party) introduced a resolution
reprimanding President Lincoln for al owing two generals to return to military service after they
won election to the House.29 Senator Davis’ original measure resolved, “That the arrangement
aforesaid, made by the President and the Secretary of War with Generals Schenck and Blair, to
receive from them temporarily their commissions of major general, with discretion, on their part,
at any time during this session of Congress to resume them, was in derogation of the Constitution

27 Peterson, pp. 240-241; Register of Debates in Congress, 23rd Cong., 1st Sess. (December 23, 1833-March 28, 1834),
pp. 58-1187; “ The President’s Protest,” Register, (May 5-7, 1834), pp. 1612-1712; “ Expunging Resolution,” Register,
(January 12-16, 1837), pp. 379-418, 427-506.
28 T he fifth resolution stated, “That the appointment by the Secretary of the Navy of Daniel B. Martin, chief engineer,
as a member of the board of engineers, to report upon proposals for constructing machinery for the United States, the
said Martin at the time being pecuniarily interested in some of said proposals, is hereby censured by this House.”
Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st. Sess. (June 13, 1860), p. 2949. For the entire debate on the resolutions, see pp.
2835-2836; 2938-2951.
29 T he generals were expected to resign from military service following their elections to Congress. T hus, if Lincoln
allowed them to reengage in military activit ies, he was arguably recommissioning them without the consent of the
Senate. According to the Constitution, T he President “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the suprem e Court, and all other Officers of the United
States.” Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
Congressional Research Service

6

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

of the United States, and not within the power of the President and the Secretary of War, or either
of them, to make.”30
The Senate referred the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. On June 15, the committee
reported, and the Senate approved, an amended version of the resolution. The new language
affirmed that an officer must be re-appointed “in the manner provided by the Constitution,” but
no longer overtly censured the President.
William Howard Taft (1912)
On July 15, 1912, Senator Joseph Bailey of Texas (Democratic Party) introduced S.Res. 357 after
President Taft was accused of trying to influence a disputed Senate election.31 The original text
resolved, “That any attempt on the part of the President of the United States to exercise the
powers and influence of his great office for the purpose of controlling the vote of any Senator
upon a question involving the right to a seat in the Senate violates the spirit, if not the letter, of
the Constitution, invades the rights of the Senate, and ought to be severely condemned.”32
In debate, Senator Bailey stated that his resolution targeted a “particular circumstance” involving
the current President.33 Stil , he was open to amending his own resolution in order to gain
supporters. On July 16, in a 35-23 vote, the Senate adopted the amended version of the resolution.
The new text substituted violates to would violate and removed the final phrase and ought to be
severely condemned. Thus, as amended, the resolution referred to potential presidential actions
without specifical y censuring Taft’s past behavior.34
Censure Attempts, No Resolution Adopted (1st-116th Congresses)
Between 1800 and 1952, at least three Presidents were the subject of critical resolutions that were
not adopted. In addition, one President (Polk) had his actions condemned by an amendment to a
resolution, while another (Tyler) received criticism in a House committee report.
Richard Nixon’s years in office (1969-1974) marked a new period in presidential censures. Since
1972, several Presidents have been subject to multiple censure attempts. Most resolutions have
used variations of the phrase censure and condemn. In reference to Presidents Nixon and Clinton,
resolutions have also cal ed for the President’s resignation.35 In al cases, these resolutions (1972-
2020) were referred to committee with no further action. Information on resolutions dated 1973-
present is available from Congress.gov.

30 Senate Journal, 38th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 11-June 15, 1864), pp. 428, 559.
31 More information on the election case of William Lorimer is available at https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/
history/common/contested_elections/095William_Lorimer.htm.
32 Congressional Record, vol. 48 (July 15, 1912), p. 9062.
33 Congressional Record, (July 16, 1912), p. 9125.
34 Congressional Record, (July 16, 1912), p. 9132.
35 T he resolutions calling for President Nixon’s resignation were H.Res. 684 , H.Con.Res. 376, and H.Res. 734 (93rd
Congress). T he resolution calling for President Clinton’s resignation was H.Res. 531 (105th Congress). T his resolution
did not contain the word, “censure,” but it did use censorious language in its preamble (“whereas” clauses), including
the phrases abused the Office of the President of the United States, subverted the laws of the United States by providing
false testim ony, and dim inished the Office of President of the United States.
Congressional Research Service

7

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

John Adams (1800)
On February 20, 1800, Representative Edward Livingston of New York (Jeffersonian Republican
Party) introduced three resolutions accusing the President of judicial interference. The text
described the case of a “fugitive” accused of crimes aboard a British ship. According to the first
two resolutions, the President advised a federal judge to release the man into British custody,
even though the fugitive claimed to be an American citizen acting in self-defense. The third
resolution condemned the President, stating: “his advice and request to the Judge of the District
Court ... are a dangerous interference of the Executive with Judicial decisions; and that the
compliance with such advice and request on the part of the Judge of the District Court of South
Carolina, is a sacrifice of the Constitutional independence of the Judicial power, and exposes the
administration thereof to suspicion and reproach.”36 On March 8, the full House voted (61-35) in
concurrence with the Committee of the Whole’s decision to defeat the three resolutions.37
John Tyler (1842)
The Tyler case followed the unexpected death of President Wil iam Henry Harrison early in his
term of office. Once John Tyler assumed the presidency, he vetoed a number of bil s, angering
several Members of Congress. On August 10, 1842, the former President, Representative John
Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (Whig Party), moved to form a select committee to consider the
President’s latest veto message and “report thereon.”38 The following week, Representative
Adams submitted the committee’s report, which recommended a constitutional amendment to
lower the threshold to overturn presidential vetoes from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority.39
The report itself issued criticism of the President’s actions, including his “continual and
unrelenting exercise of executive legislation, by the alternate gross abuse of constitutional power
and bold assumption of powers never vested in him by any law.”40 On August 17, the House
voted (100-80) to approve the report, but did not have the necessary two-thirds support required
to adopt the resolution amending the Constitution.41
In this case, the House did not approve a censure resolution. Stil , the report itself may be
considered a form of presidential censure. In response to the criticism, Tyler submitted an official
protest, but the House refused to recognize it.42

36 “Case of Jonathan Robbins,” Congressional Globe, 6th Cong., 1st Sess. (February 20, 1800), pp. 532-533.
37 Congressional Globe, (March 8, 1800), p. 619.
38 Congressional Globe, 27th Cong., 27th Cong., 2nd Sess. (August 10, 1842), p. 874.
39 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2: “ Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to th e President of the United States; If he approve he shall
sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter
the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that
House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.”
40 House Journal, 27th Cong., 2nd Sess. (August 17, 1842), p. 1349.
41 Journal, p. 1346. At the time, it was considered unusual for the House to approve a report separately from
accompanying legislation. However, Representative John Botts successfully moved to divide the question, enabling a
separate vote on the report. According to the Congressional Globe, “ Whilst it was impracticable to carry into effect the
object of the resolution, he wished to see who were in favor of the report.” Globe, 27th Cong, 2nd Sess., (August 17,
1842), p. 907. In current practice, neither house votes to approve a report accompanying a bill or resolution.
42 “T he Protest,” Congressional Globe, (August 30, 1842), pp. 973-975.
Congressional Research Service

8

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

James K. Polk (1848)
On January 3, 1848, the House considered a resolution congratulating Generals Zachary Taylor
and Winfield Scott for their military service during the Mexican-American War. Representative
George Ashmun of Massachusetts (Whig Party) offered an amendment to a motion to refer the
resolution to the Committee on Military Affairs. The amendment instructed the committee to add
the phrase in a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President to the resolution.
In an 85-81 vote, the House approved the amendment.43 However, the underlying resolution was
never adopted. Instead, both chambers passed a joint resolution in praise of the generals, and this
one included no criticism of Polk or the war.44
Ulysses S. Grant (1871)
The Grant case followed months of acrimony between the President and Senator Charles Sumner
of Massachusetts (Republican Party), who previously served as chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee. As chairman, Senator Sumner led efforts to defeat the President’s treaty to annex the
Dominican Republic. However, the conflict subsequently led to Sumner’s replacement as
chairman at the start of the 42nd Congress (March 4, 1871).45 On March 24, Senator Sumner
introduced an eight-part resolution that addressed the President’s recent deployment of ships
along the Dominican coast. Section five of the resolution cal ed the action, without the authority
of Congress, “an infraction of the Constitution of the United States and a usurpation of power not
conferred upon the President.”46 On March 27, Senator Sumner modified his own resolution to
insert additional text: this “bel igerent intervention ... [was] unauthorized violence, utterly without
support in law or reason, and proceeding directly from that kingly prerogative which is disowned
by the Constitution of the United States.”47 Two days later, the Senate voted 39-16 to table the
resolution.48
Harry S. Truman (1952)
During the Korean War, steel workers were scheduled to strike on April 9, 1952. However, hours
before the scheduled walkout, President Truman issued an executive order directing the
Department of Commerce to seize control of steel mil s associated with the United Steelworkers

43 Congressional Globe, 30th Cong., 1st Sess. (January 3, 1848), p. 95.
44 Congressional Globe, (February 7, 1848), p. 304; (May 4, 1848), p. 725.
45 Sumner’s stance on the treaty damaged his relationship with Secretary of State Hamilton Fish. According to
biographer Frederick J. Blue, pro-Grant Republican senators “ used Sumner’s break with Fish as proof that his
usefulness as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee has been seriously impaired,” prompting the Republican
Conference to vote, 26 to 21, for Sumner’s removal as chairman. Frederick J. Blue, Charles Sumner and the
Conscience of the North (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1994), p. 194; David T . Canon et al.,
Com m ittees in the U.S. Congress: 1789-1946, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002), p. 118.
46 Senate Journal, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. (March 24, 1871), p. 90.
47 Senate Journal, (March 27, 1871), p. 96.
48 Senate Journal (March 29, 1871), p. 98.
Congressional Research Service

9

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

of America.49 In response, Representative Burr Powel Harrison of Virginia (Democratic Party)
introduced H.Con.Res. 207, condemning the seizure as “without authority in law.”50
The measure marked the first known attempt to reprimand a President with a concurrent
resolution. Such measures require the agreement of both houses of Congress. However, on April
9, the resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and received no further
consideration.51
Richard M. Nixon (1972/1973/1974)
Beginning in 1972, President Nixon was the subject of several House resolutions (simple and
concurrent) that either sought his censure or cal ed for his resignation. Introduced on January 18,
1972, H.Con.Res. 500 (92nd Congress) addressed the President’s conduct during the Vietnam
War.52 It was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Al other resolutions pertained to
the President’s conduct related to the Watergate break-in (June 17, 1972) and were referred to the
House Judiciary Committee.
The first group of Watergate resolutions, submitted between October 23, 1973, and December 4,
1973, followed the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox on October 20. The second set,
H.Res. 1288 and H.Con.Res. 589 (August 2 and 8, 1974), were submitted after the Judiciary
Committee adopted articles of impeachment (July 27-30, 1974).53
Three resolutions, H.Res. 684, H.Con.Res. 376, and H.Res. 734, stated that the President “should
resign” but did not cite a specific abuse of power. Thus, they arguably could be considered “no
confidence” resolutions, not measures explicitly expressing censure.54
Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, one day after the last censure resolution, H.Con.Res. 589, was
submitted.
William J. Clinton (1998/1999)
The Clinton resolutions concerned the President’s testimony before a grand jury in August 1998.
The testimony was al eged to contradict an earlier deposition that the President had given in
January. In response, some Members of Congress considered either censuring or impeaching the
President for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Introduced between September 1998 and February 1999, five resolutions considered alternatives
to impeachment proceedings. H.Res. 531 cal ed for the President’s immediate resignation. Al

49 For more information about the steel mill seizure, see Maeva Marcus, Truman and the Steel Seizure Case: The Limits
on Presidential Power (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994). In June 1952, the Supreme Court ruled that the
seizure was not authorized under the Constitution or laws of the United States. U.S. Supreme Court, Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
50 H.Con.Res. 207 (82nd Congress).
51 “Steel Plant Seizure.” In CQ Almanac 1952, 8th ed., 320-25. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1953.
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal52-1379437.
52 According to the resolution, President Nixon violated the law and the “will of Congress,” by “failing and refusing” to
withdraw American troops from Indochina as directed by the “ Mansfield amendment ” (Section 601, P.L. 92-156).
53 For more information on the House’s reaction to the President Nixon’s Watergate-related conduct, see Remini, The
House, pp. 437-442.
54 See CRS Report RL34037, Congressional Censure and “No Confidence” Votes Regarding Public Officials, by
Richard S. Beth.
Congressional Research Service

10

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

other resolutions used variations of the phrase censure and condemn in reference to the
President’s conduct.55
H.J.Res. 139 and H.J.Res. 140 were introduced on December 17, 1998, two days before the
House approved two articles of impeachment, while H.J.Res. 12 (January 6, 1999) was
introduced one day before the start of the President’s Senate impeachment trial. The final
resolution, S.Res. 44, was introduced on February 12, 1999, the same day that the Senate voted to
acquit the President of al charges.
Note that H.J.Res. 139, H.J.Res. 140, and H.J.Res. 12 were joint resolutions.56 Unlike simple and
concurrent resolutions, final approval of joint resolutions requires passage by both houses of
Congress, and then the President must sign them or al ow them to become law without his
signature.57 These specific joint resolutions also mandated that the President, by his signature,
agree to the following conditions: acknowledge censure and condemnation, donate $500,000 to
the Treasury, not deliver in person any State of the Union address, not involve himself in
Democratic Party or campaign activities, and not serve in public office after his term as President
concluded. The joint resolutions’ procedural and policy requirements made them the most
controversial of the Clinton censure resolutions.58 However, like the other censure resolutions, the
joint resolutions were referred to committee without further consideration.59
George W. Bush (2005/2006/2007)
The George W. Bush resolutions addressed the Administration’s response to the September 11,
2001, attack on the United States and its prosecution of the global war on terrorism. S.Res. 398
charged the “unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans.” S.Res. 303 and H.Res. 626
targeted President Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; both measures resolved to
censure and condemn them for “disregarding statutes, treaties, and the Constitution.” The
remaining four resolutions—H.Res. 636, H.Res. 530, S.Res. 302, and H.Res. 625—sought to
censure either President Bush alone, or in addition to Vice President Richard Cheney, for actions
related to the war in Iraq.
S.Res. 302 was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The other resolutions were
referred to either the House or Senate Judiciary Committees.60 While no resolutions were reported

55 For more information on the President Clinton investigation and congressional response, including impeachment
proceedings, see Remini, The House, pp. 489-495.
56 See CRS Report 98-706, Bills and Resolutions: Examples of How Each Kind Is Used, by Richard S. Beth.
57 If a President vetoes a resolution, Congress may attempt to override the veto. Veto overrides require a two -thirds
vote in each chamber.
58 Had the joint resolutions passed, they may have prompt ed constitutional concerns. See the debate on joint resolutions
of censure in the Committee on the Judiciary: U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Im peachm ent
Inquiry: William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, committee print, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., December
10, 1998, Ser. No. 18 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 646. T he Constitution does not give Congress the authority to
punish the President outside of impeachment proceedings; furthermore, Congress may not enact “bills of attainde r,”
which are defined by the Supreme Court as legislation that “determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an
identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial.” United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437,
468 (1965); CRS Report R40826, Bills of Attainder: The Constitutional Im plications of Congress Legislating
Narrowly, by Kenneth R. T homas (out of print; available to congressional clients from the author upon request) .
59 T he House resolutions were referred to the Judiciary Committee. T he Senate resolution was referred to the Rules and
Administration Committee.
60 H.Res. 625, and H.Res. 626 were subsequently referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Civil Liberties.
Congressional Research Service

11

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

out of committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on March 31, 2006, held hearings on S.Res.
398.
Barack Obama (2013/2014/2016)
In the 114th Congress, three House resolutions targeted President Obama, using the term the
House of Representatives does hereby condemn and censure Barack Obama. Another two
resolutions, introduced in the 113th Congress, criticized the President’s actions, but did not
include the word censure. Al of the measures were simple House resolutions, which were
referred to the Judiciary Committee, and subsequently by the committee to its Subcommittee on
the Constitution and Civil Justice. The resolutions received no further action.
H.Res. 582 resolved to censure the President “for having wil fully disregarded the legislative
powers of the duly elected Congress provided by the Constitution of the United States through his
executive actions to deprive American citizens of their constitutional y mandated right to bear
arms under the Second Amendment.” H.Res. 588 (114th Congress) stated that the President
“wil fully disregarded the President’s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of
the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the
advice of military and intel igence advisors, and failed national security policy.” H.Res. 607
charged Obama for operating “outside of the rule of law and the authority granted to him by the
Constitution of the United States.”
The critical resolutions from the 113th Congress, H.Res. 425 and H.Res. 652, used alternative
terms to reprimand the President. H.Res. 425 resolved that the House “disapproves of the
President’s failure to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ as required by the
Constitution.” H.Res. 652 resolved that the House “condemns the President and the executive
branch of Government for actions and acts that are beyond the clearly defined laws of the United
States.”
Given that the phrase condemns the President follows the word resolved, it could be argued that
H.Res. 652 is a resolution of censure. In H.Res. 425, the resolution disapproves of the President’s
actions, but it does not censure or condemn the President as an individual. Arguably, it is not a
resolution of censure.
Donald Trump (2017/2018/2019/2020)
In the 115th Congress (2017-2018), President Trump was the subject of two censure resolutions.
The first resolution, H.Res. 496, “Condemning and censuring President Donald Trump,” was
submitted on August 18, 2017, one week after a counter protestor was kil ed at the site of a
political ral y organized by several self-described alt-right and white supremacist groups and
individuals. The resolution charged the President with failing to “specifical y condemn the ‘Unite
the Right’ ral y” and for asserting that “‘both sides’ were to blame for the violence in
Charlottesvil e, Virginia.”61 The resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary
with no further action.
Early in 2018, another resolution, H.Res. 700, expressing the “sense of the House of
Representatives regarding President Donald J. Trump’s remarks about Haiti, El Salvador, and
African Nations” was submitted. The resolution sought to “censure and condemn President
Donald Trump” for his statements made at a January 11, 2018, White House meeting. According
to the resolution, the President’s comments were “hateful, discriminatory, and racist.” The

61 H.Res. 496 (115th Congress), “Condemning and censuring President Donald T rump.”
Congressional Research Service

12

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

resolution was submitted on January 18, 2018, and referred to the Committees on the Judiciary
and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs with no further action.
In the 116th Congress, President Trump was the subject of three resolutions related to the
President’s tweets on July 14, 2019.62 Two resolutions condemned his use of language, and one
resolution sought to censure him.
On July16, the House agreed to H.Res. 489, a resolution condemning the President’s language.
Another resolution that would have condemned the President’s statements, H.Res. 494, was
referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.63 The third resolution, H.Res. 490,
“condemning and censuring President Donald Trump,” was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, where it received no further action.
On December 17 and 18, 2019, two similar resolutions of censure were submitted: H.Res. 766
and H.Res. 771, respectively. Both resolutions accused the President of abusing “the powers of
the Presidency for his own personal political gain” by soliciting “the interference of Ukraine in
the 2020 United States Presidential election.” These resolutions were referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary with no further action. On December 18, the House agreed to H.Res. 755,
“impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and
misdemeanors.”
Final y, in the 116th Congress, the President was subject to S.Con.Res. 39, resolving that
“Congress condemns the President of the United States for ordering Federal officers to use gas
and rubber bullets against the Americans who were peaceably protesting in Lafayette Square in
Washington, DC on the night of June 1, 2020, thereby violating the constitutional rights of those
peaceful protestors.”64 Like H.Res. 652 (Obama, 113th Congress), S.Con.Res. 39 does not contain
the word censure in its text. However, since the condemnation targets the President rather than the
President’s actions, it is arguably a resolution of censure.65

62 Felicia Sonmez and Mike DeBonis, “T rump T ells Four Liberal Congresswomen to ‘Go Back’ to T heir Countries,
Prompt ing Pelosi to Defend T hem,” Washington Post, July 14, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
says-four-liberal-congresswomen-should-go-back-to-the-crime-infested-places-from-which-they-came/2019/07/14/
b8bf140e-a638-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html.
63 In the 116th Congress, additional resolutions sought to condemn the President’s use of language (H.Res. 731) or
condemn the T rump Administration (H.Res. 499).
64 T he full resolution states: “ Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), T hat it is the sense of
Congress that the constitutional rights of Americans to peaceably assemble, exercise freedom of speech, and petition
the Government for redress of grievances must be respected; that violence and looting are unlawful, unacceptable, and
contrary to the purpose of peaceful protests; and that Congress condemns the President of the United States for ordering
Federal officers to use gas and rubber bullets against the Americans who were peaceably protesting in Lafayette Square
in Washington, DC on the night of June 1, 2020, thereby violating the constitutional rights of those peaceful
protestors.”
65 President T rump was also the subject of resolutions of censure in the 117 th Congress (2021-2022). As of January 25,
2020, three resolutions had been introduced: H.Res. 14, H.Con.Res. 3, and H.Con.Res. 5.
Congressional Research Service

13

Table 1. Presidential Censure Attempts
(1789-2020, 1st-116th Congresses)
President
Date
Sponsor
(Party)
Congress
Chamber
Introduced
Measure(s)
(Party)
Language
Final Action
John Adams
6th
House
February 20,
3 simple
Edward
“a sacrifice of the Constitutional independence of Defeated in Committee
(Federalist)
(1799-1801)
1800
resolutions
Livingston
the Judicial power, and exposes the
of the Whole, March 8,
(Jeffersonian
administration thereof to suspicion and
1800
Republican)
reproach”
Andrew Jackson
23rd
Senate
December
1 simple
Henry Clay
“has assumed upon himself authority and power
Agreed to on March 28,
(Democratic
(1833-1835)
26, 1833
resolution
(Anti-
not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but
1834 (expunged by
Republican)
Jacksonian)
in derogation of both”
Senate vote on January
16, 1837)
John Tyler
27th
House
August 17,
House
John Quincy
“gross abuse of constitutional power and bold
Report adopted on
(Whig)
(1841-1843)
1842
committee
Adams
assumption of powers never vested in him by any August 17, 1842
report
(Whig)
law”
James K. Polk
30th
House
January 3,
Amendment
George Ashmun “a war unnecessarily and unconstitutional y begun Amendment adopted
(Democratic)
(1847-1849)
1848
to a motion
(Whig)
by the President”
January 3, 1848
to refer a
(underlying resolution
resolution
did not pass)
James Buchanan
36th
House
June 11,
5 simple
Robert Hatton
“the President and Secretary of the Navy ...
Agreed to on June 13,
(Democratic)
(1859-1861)
1860
resolutions
(Opposition)
have set an example dangerous to the public
1860
safety, and deserving the reproof of this House”
Abraham Lincoln
38th
Senate
May 11,
1 simple
Garret Davis
“the arrangement aforesaid, made by the
Amended resolution
(Republican)
(1863-1865)
1864
resolution
(Unionist)
President and the Secretary of War ... was in
agreed to on June 15,
derogation of the Constitution of the United
1864
States, and not within the power of the President
and the Secretary of War, or either of them, to
make” (text as introduced)
Ulysses S. Grant
42nd
Senate
March 24,
1 simple
Charles Sumner
“an infraction of the Constitution of the United
Tabled on March 29,
(Republican)
(1871-1873)
1871
resolution
(Republican)
States and a usurpation of power not conferred
1871
upon the President”
CRS-14

President
Date
Sponsor
(Party)
Congress
Chamber
Introduced
Measure(s)
(Party)
Language
Final Action
Wil iam Howard
62nd
Senate
July 15, 1912
S.Res. 357
Joseph Bailey
“any attempt on the part of the President of the
Amended resolution
Taft (Republican) (1911-1913)
(Democratic)
United States to exercise the powers and
agreed to on July 16,
influence of his great office for the purpose of
1912
control ing the vote of any Senator upon a
question involving the right to a seat in the
Senate violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the
Constitution, invades the rights of the Senate,
and ought to be severely condemned” (text as
introduced)
Harry S. Truman
82nd
House
April 9,
H.Con.Res.
Burr Powel
“without authority in law ... without due process
Referred to House
(Democratic)
(1951-1952)
1952
207
Harrison
of law”
Committee on the
(Democratic)
(the resolution’s summary uses stronger
Judiciary
language: “condemning as unlawful”)
Richard M.
92nd
House
January 18,
H.Con.Res.
Bel a Savitzky
“the aforementioned conduct of the President
Referred to the House
Nixon
(1971-1972)
1972
500
Abzug
and the United States should be, and hereby is
Foreign Affairs
(Republican)

(Democratic)
disapproved and censured”
Committee
Richard M.
93rd
House
October 23,
H.Con.Res.
Clarence D.
“censured and condemned for his publicly
Referred to House
Nixon
(1973-1974)
1973
365
Long
announced defiance of the judicial branch”
Judiciary Committee
(Republican)
(Democratic)
Richard M.
93rd
House
October 30,
H.Con.Res.
Clarence D.
“censured for his break of public trust and
Referred to House
Nixon
(1973-1974)
1973
371
Long
obstruction of the judicial process”
Judiciary Committee
(Republican)
(Democratic)
Richard M.
93rd
House
August 2,
H.Res. 1288
Paul Findley
“censured for said moral insensitivity, negligence,
Referred to House
Nixon
(1973-1974)
1974
(Republican)
and maladministration”
Judiciary Committee
(Republican)
Richard M.
93rd
House
August 8,
H.Con.Res.
Dale Milford
“severely censured for moral insensitivity, gross
Referred to House
Nixon
(1973-1974)
1974
589
(Democratic)
negligence, maladministration, and the violation of Judiciary Committee
(Republican)
his oath of office”
Wil iam J. Clinton
105th
House
December
H.J.Res. 139
Amo Houghton
“ful y deserves, the censure and condemnation of
Referred to House
(Democratic)
(1997-1998)
17, 1998
(Republican)
the American people and the Congress”
Judiciary Committee
CRS-15

President
Date
Sponsor
(Party)
Congress
Chamber
Introduced
Measure(s)
(Party)
Language
Final Action
Wil iam J. Clinton
105th
House
December
H.J.Res. 140
Paul McHale
“censure and condemn Wil iam Jefferson Clinton
Referred to House
(Democratic)
(1997-1998)
17, 1998
(Democratic)
for having engaged in a pattern of deceitful and
Judiciary Committee
dishonest conduct”
Wil iam J. Clinton
106th
House
January 6,
H.J.Res. 12
Amo Houghton
“by his conduct has brought upon himself, and
Referred to House
(Democratic)
(1999-2000)
1999
(Republican)
ful y deserves, the censure and condemnation of
Judiciary Committee
the American people and the Congress”
Wil iam J. Clinton
106th
Senate
February 12,
S.Res. 44
Dianne
“censure Wil iam Jefferson Clinton ... and does
Referred to Senate Rules
(Democratic)
(1999-2000)
1999
Feinstein
condemn his wrongful conduct in the strongest
and Administration
(Democratic)
terms”
Committee
George W. Bush
109th
House
December
H.Res. 636
John Conyers Jr. “censure President George W. Bush for ... ”a
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2005-2006)
18, 2005
(Democratic)
Judiciary Committee
George W. Bush
109th
Senate
March 31,
S.Res. 398
Russel Feingold
“censure George W. Bush, President of the
Referred to Senate
(Republican)
(2005-2006)
2006
(Democratic)
United States, and does condemn his unlawful
Judiciary Committee
authorization of wiretaps”
(hearings held)
George W. Bush
110th
House
July 10, 2007
H.Res. 530
Robert Wexler
“censure George W. Bush ... and does condemn
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2007-2008)
(Democratic)
his ... unconscionable abuse of his authority”b
Judiciary Committee’s
Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil
Liberties
George W. Bush
110th
Senate
August 3,
S.Res. 302
Russel Feingold
“censures President George W. Bush and Vice
Referred to Senate
(Republican)
(2007-2008)
2007
(Democratic)
President Richard B. Cheney for misleading the
Foreign Relations
American people”
Committee
George W. Bush
110th
Senate
August 3,
S.Res. 303
Russel Feingold
“censures George W. Bush, President of the
Referred to Senate
(Republican)
(2007-2008)
2007
(Democratic)
United States, and Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney
Judiciary Committee
General of the United States, and condemns their
lengthy record of undermining the rule of law
and the separation of powers”
CRS-16

President
Date
Sponsor
(Party)
Congress
Chamber
Introduced
Measure(s)
(Party)
Language
Final Action
George W. Bush
110th
House
August 4,
H.Res. 625
Maurice D.
“censures President George W. Bush and Vice
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2007-2008)
2007
Hinchey
President Richard B. Cheney for misleading the
Judiciary Committee’s
(Democratic)
American people”
Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil
Liberties
George W. Bush
110th
House
August 4,
H.Res. 626
Maurice D.
“censures George W. Bush, President of the
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2007-2008)
2007
Hinchey
United States, and Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney
Judiciary Committee’s
(Democratic)
General of the United States, and condemns their Subcommittee on the
lengthy record of undermining the rule of law
Constitution, Civil
and the separation of powers”
Rights, and Civil
Liberties
Barack Obama
113th
House
June 26,
H.Res. 652c
Randy K.
“condemns the President and the executive
Referred to House
(Democratic)
(2013-2014)
2014
Weber
branch of Government for actions and acts that
Judiciary Committee’s
(Republican)
are beyond the clearly defined laws of the United
Subcommittee on the
States”
Constitution and Civil
Justice
Barack Obama
114th
House
January 7,
H.Res. 582
Steven M.
“censure and condemn Barack Obama for having
Referred to House
(Democratic)
(2015-2016)
2016
Palazzo
wil ful y disregarded the legislative powers of the
Judiciary Committee’s
(Republican)
duly elected Congress provided by the
Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the United States through his
Constitution and Civil
executive actions”
Justice
Barack Obama
114th
House
January 13,
H.Res. 588
Ted S. Yoho
“censure and condemn President Barack Obama
Referred to House
(Democratic)
(2015-2016)
2016
(Republican)
for having wil ful y disregarded the President’s
Judiciary Committee’s
constitutional responsibilities as Commander in
Subcommittee on the
Chief of the United States”
Constitution and Civil
Justice
Barack Obama
114th
House
February 4,
H.Res. 607
Dennis A. Ross
“condemn and censure President Barack Obama” Referred to House
(Democratic)
(2015-2016)
2016
(Republican)
Judiciary Committee’s
Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Civil
Justice
CRS-17

President
Date
Sponsor
(Party)
Congress
Chamber
Introduced
Measure(s)
(Party)
Language
Final Action
Donald J. Trump
115th
House
August 18,
H.Res. 496
Jerrold Nadler
“censure and condemn President Donald Trump
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2017-2018)
2017
(Democratic)
for his inadequate response to the violence in
Judiciary Committee
Charlottesvil e, Virginia”
Donald J. Trump
115th
House
January 18,
H.Res. 700
Cedric L.
“censure and condemn President Donald Trump
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2017-2018)
2018
Richmond
for his statements at the January 11, 2018, White
Judiciary Committee and
(Democratic)
House meeting, which are hateful, discriminatory,
the House Foreign
and racist”
Affairs Committee
Donald J. Trump
116th
House
July 15, 2019
H.Res. 490
Steve Cohen
“censures and condemns President Donald
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2019-2020)
(Democratic)
Trump for his tweets made on July 14 and 15,
Judiciary Committee
2019, which are xenophobic, promote White

supremacist and nativist ideologies, and violate
the President’s oath of office to uphold and
defend the Constitution, which includes respect
for the democratic process and the Congress”
Donald J. Trump
116th
House
December
H.Res. 766
Tulsi Gabbard
“censures President Donald J. Trump for actions
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2019-2020)
17, 2019
(Democratic)
taken by the President as outlined in this
Judiciary Committee
resolution, which constitute a wil ful abuse of
power; censures President Donald J. Trump for
putting his personal political interests before
those of the American people in a manner that
undermines the integrity of the United States
democratic process”
Donald J. Trump
116th
House
December
H.Res. 771
Tulsi Gabbard
“censure President Donald J. Trump for actions
Referred to House
(Republican)
(2019-2020)
18, 2019
(Democratic)
taken by the President as outlined in this
Judiciary Committee
Resolution, which constitute a wil ful abuse of
power; censure President Donald J. Trump for
putting his personal political interests before
those of the American people in a manner that
undermines the integrity of the United States
democratic process”
CRS-18

link to page 22
President
Date
Sponsor
(Party)
Congress
Chamber
Introduced
Measure(s)
(Party)
Language
Final Action
Donald J. Trump
116th
Senate
June 4, 2020 S.Con.Res.
Charles
“condemns the President of the United States for Referred to Senate
(Republican)d
(2019-2020)
39c
Schumer
ordering Federal officers to use gas and rubber
Judiciary Committee
(Democratic)
bul ets against the Americans who were
peaceably protesting in Lafayette Square in
Washington, DC on the night of June 1, 2020,
thereby violating the constitutional rights of
those peaceful protestors”
Sources: House Journal, Senate Journal, Annals of Congress, Congressional Globe, Register of Debates, Congressional Record, ProQuest Congressional, and Congress.gov.
Notes:
a. The censure resolution reads in part: “the House … does hereby censure President George W. Bush for—(1) failing to respond to requests for information
concerning al egations that he and others in his Administration—(A) misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; (B)
misstated and manipulated intel igence information regarding the justification for the war; (C) countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of
persons in Iraq; and (D) permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of his Administration; (2) failing to adequately account for specific misstatements he made
regarding the war; and (3) failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.”
b. The censure resolution reads in part: “the House … does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his decision to
commute the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison, his unconscionable abuse of h is authority with regard to the
deceitful chain of events concerning the falsifying of intel igence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities and the exaggeration of the threat posed by Iraq, his involvement in the
clear political retaliation against former Ambassador and Ms. Wilson, and his decision to reward the perjury of Mr. Libby, which effectively protected President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other Administration officials from further scrutiny.”
c. Beginning in 1972, resolutions most clearly intending to censure a President used the word censure in the resolution. H.Res. 652 (113th Congress) and S.Con.Res. 39
(116th Congress) do not use the word censure, but they are arguably resolutions of censure because they “condemn” the President as an individual rather than
condemn the actions of the President.
d. As of January 25, 2021, President Trump has been the subject of three additional resolutions of presidential censure submitted in the 117th Congress (2021-2022):
H.Res. 14, H.Con.Res. 3, and H.Con.Res. 5.
CRS-19

Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

Author Information

Jane A. Hudiburg
Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45087 · VERSION 14 · UPDATED
20