We’re in for an interesting four years. Who knows what could happen?
And now an impeachment push on Capitol Hill is sending Washington, D.C. into hysterics.
Standing Up for Trump’s Mandate
Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde is taking a bold stand to protect President Donald Trump’s vision for America, rolling out articles of impeachment against a Rhode Island judge who’s thrown a wrench into the administration’s plans.
Chief U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr. previously ordered the Trump team to unfreeze federal funds—a move that’s got Trump supporters fuming and Clyde ready to fight back with everything he’s got.
Clyde’s impeachment articles, debuted exclusively with Fox News Digital, pull no punches. They slam McConnell with charges of abuse of power and conflicts of interest, alleging he “knowingly politicized and weaponized his judicial position to advance his own political views and beliefs.”
For those backing Trump’s push to reshape government, this isn’t just a legal disagreement—it’s a betrayal of the trust Americans placed in their president. If these accusations hold water, the articles insist McConnell should be booted from the bench without hesitation.
Blocking the People’s Choice
The drama centers on a lawsuit led by 22 states and D.C., all challenging Trump’s gutsy decision to hold back federal grant funds as part of his efficiency drive.
McConnell stepped in with a restraining order, forcing the administration to comply, and when Trump’s team appealed to the First Circuit, they hit a brick wall—the court wouldn’t pause the judge’s ruling.
Clyde sees this as a direct attack on the overwhelming support Trump won in November. “The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump, providing a clear mandate to make our federal government more efficient,” he told Fox News Digital.
“Yet Judge McConnell, who stands to benefit from his own injunction, is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president’s agenda and defy the will of the American people. Judge McConnell’s actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment.”
This isn’t a spur-of-the-moment reaction. Clyde first hinted at impeachment back in February, after McConnell ordered the reinstatement of paused federal grants and loans—another blow to Trump’s efforts to cut waste. Now, with the articles formalized, the battle lines are drawn.
Adding fuel to the fire, Trump loyalists and conservatives have seized on a 2021 video of McConnell that’s recently resurfaced, where he declared courts must “stand and enforce the rule of law … against arbitrary and capricious actions by what could be a tyrant or could be whatnot.”
Clyde’s resolution pounces on this, arguing McConnell “has allowed his personal, political opinions to influence his decisions and rulings” and shown a “bias that would warp his decision” in the funding case.
Congress Fights Back for Trump
For Clyde, this is about more than one judge—it’s about Congress stepping up to defend Trump’s agenda against activist courts. “Congress bears the responsibility and the constitutional authority to hold activist judges accountable through impeachment,” he said.
“I applaud the work of my colleagues to hold other rogue judges accountable, and I hope we see swift action on this critical matter in the House very soon.” The court, when reached for comment, stayed mum, leaving McConnell’s fate hanging in the balance.
Clyde’s not alone in this fight. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, has also jumped into the fray, filing impeachment articles against U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg. The D.C.-based judge is overseeing a case challenging Trump’s use of an old 1789 wartime law to deport Venezuelan gang members tied to Tren de Aragua—a tough-on-crime move Gill says Boasberg undermined by pausing the order.
These clashes with lower court judges who keep ruling against Trump have sparked a wave of frustration among his allies. The escalating tension even prompted a rare response from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts this month. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said.
“The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” But for Clyde, Gill, and Trump’s base, this isn’t just about legal nitpicking—it’s about ensuring the president’s America-first agenda isn’t derailed by unelected judges.
