House Republicans took a significant step on Wednesday to censure Representative Al Green, a Democrat from Texas, for his disruptive behavior during President Donald Trump’s recent address to a joint session of Congress. The House voted largely along party lines, with 209 Republicans supporting the motion to proceed with the censure resolution, while 211 Democrats opposed it. This narrow margin, a difference of just two votes, allowed the resolution to move forward, setting the stage for a final vote on Thursday. Green, who stood in the aisle during Trump’s speech, waving his cane and refusing to sit down despite warnings from House Speaker Mike Johnson, defended his actions as a matter of conscience. He acknowledged that his protest could result in disciplinary action but expressed no regrets, stating, “If you get in the way, if you’re arrested, then you’ve got to be willing to suffer the consequences.”
Green’s actions during Trump’s speech were not spontaneous. He later explained that he had carefully considered his decision to protest, driven by his strong opposition to Trump’s assertion that he had a “mandate” to implement his agenda. Green interpreted this mandate as a potential threat to vital social programs, particularly Medicaid and Social Security, which are critical to millions of Americans. “I didn’t just say you don’t have a mandate,” Green clarified. “I said you don’t have a mandate to cut Medicaid, and I mentioned that the cap should be lifted higher on Social Security.” By standing up—literally and figuratively—Green aimed to draw attention to what he views as a existential threat to these programs and to the vulnerable populations they serve. His protest, while disruptive, was a deliberate act of defiance, rooted in his deeply held beliefs about the role of government in protecting its citizens.
Despite the personal and professional consequences he may face, Green expressed no anger toward Speaker Johnson, the House sergeant at arms, or even the Republican members who are leading the effort to censure him. “I’m not angry with the speaker; I’m not angry with the officers,” he told reporters. “I’m not upset with the members who are going to bring the motions or resolution.” Instead, Green framed his actions as a necessary sacrifice, a willingness to endure criticism and potential punishment for the sake of a cause he believes in deeply. His resolve reflects a broader tradition of civil disobedience within American politics, where elected officials and citizens alike have historically used nonviolent protest to draw attention to injustices and challenge authority.
The push to censure Green comes from Representative Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington State, who introduced the resolution. Newhouse, a member of the more moderate Main Street Caucus, is one of the few Republicans who voted to impeach Trump following the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. In explaining his decision to pursue censure, Newhouse emphasized that his intent was not to engage in partisan gamesmanship but to uphold the integrity of the House as an institution. “This isn’t a political stunt,” he told NBC News. “It truly is about standing for the integrity of the institution. I would hope there is bipartisan support for that. We’ve got to turn things down.” Newhouse’s stance reflects a concern shared by many lawmakers about the erosion of decorum and respect in Congress, where Such disruptions have become increasingly common in recent years.
Green’s actions, while certainly unusual, are not without precedent. In the past two years alone, three Democratic members of the House—Adam Schiff of California, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Jamaal Bowman of New York—have been censured for various forms of misconduct. Censure is a formal rebuke that stops short of expulsion but carries significant symbolic weight, serving as a public reprimand of a member’s behavior. While the censure of a member of Congress is rare, it underscores the growing polarization and tension within the House, where members from opposing parties increasingly find themselves at odds over both policy and procedure.
The debate over censure has also raised broader questions about the role of protest and dissent in American democracy. Green’s actions, while disruptive, were peaceful and nonviolent, and they reflect a long-standing tradition of using symbolic acts to challenge authority and bring attention to important issues. At the same time, the push to censure him highlights the tension between individual expression and institutional norms, as lawmakers grapple with how to balance free speech with the need for orderly governance. As the House prepares to vote on whether to formally censure Green, the outcome will not only determine his fate but also send a message about the boundaries of acceptable behavior in Congress—and the consequences for those who cross them.
