Following a thorough investigation and formal impeachment proceedings, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. This action, initiated by the House Committee on Homeland Security, and championed by Chairman Mark E. Green, MD (R-TN), was deemed a necessary response to what many see as a grave dereliction of duty. The impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas is rooted in accusations of willful disregard for the law and a breach of public trust, issues that strike at the heart of his responsibilities as head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The core justification for the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas rests on two critical pillars. First, he is accused of deliberately refusing to enforce existing immigration laws, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act. Despite the Act containing clear mandates for detention in certain circumstances, Secretary Mayorkas is alleged to have implemented policies that led to the release of millions of inadmissible individuals into the United States. Critics point to the extensive use of parole, intended for case-by-case and temporary situations, which under Mayorkas’s leadership expanded to encompass over 1.7 million instances. Furthermore, the creation of categorical parole programs is seen as a direct contradiction of the statute’s intent. This alleged non-compliance extends to interior enforcement, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel were reportedly instructed not to detain most illegal aliens, including those with criminal records. The September 2021 enforcement guidance, which stated that unlawful presence alone was insufficient for removal and that even criminal convictions might not warrant arrest, is highlighted as a clear deviation from legal requirements.
The second major reason for the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas is the accusation of breaching public trust. This charge encompasses both a failure to uphold his legal obligation to secure the nation’s borders and knowingly making false statements to Congress. Secretary Mayorkas testified under oath, claiming to have “operational control” of the border as defined by the Secure Fence Act. However, he later appeared to retract this claim, and even asserted that the border was “no less secure than it was previously”—a statement widely considered to be demonstrably false given the ongoing border crisis. Furthermore, allegations of obstructing congressional oversight have surfaced, with the Homeland Security Committee reportedly needing to issue subpoenas to compel the production of essential documents, which remain unfulfilled.
The impeachment proceedings are not simply a matter of policy disagreement. As Chairman Green articulated, this is about addressing a cabinet official’s potentially unlawful actions that have demonstrably harmed the country. The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly mandates the homeland security secretary to “control and guard” America’s borders, alongside numerous other provisions outlining the methods to achieve this. The gravity of the situation is underscored by legal precedents and constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court case U.S. v. Texas (2023) inadvertently lent weight to the impeachment argument. During oral arguments, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that impeachment could be a warranted response to a “dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility” by the executive branch. This acknowledgment aligns with the accusations against Secretary Mayorkas, suggesting his actions could be viewed as such an abdication. Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, also explicitly mentioned impeachment as a legitimate congressional response. Crucially, the Supreme Court’s decision did not rule on the legality of Secretary Mayorkas’s policies, meaning his defenders cannot use the ruling to justify his actions.
It is essential to understand that impeachment, as conceived by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, is not limited to criminal offenses. It is a mechanism to address broader failures in governance and breaches of public trust. When officials tasked with executing the law deliberately choose not to do so, and instead substitute those laws with their own directives, they are seen as overstepping their constitutional bounds by assuming powers reserved for the legislative branch. This undermines the rule of law itself, an offense that the framers considered worthy of impeachment and potential removal from office.
Drawing from the Federalist Papers, specifically No. 65 by Alexander Hamilton, impeachable offenses are those arising from the “abuse or violation of some public trust.” James Madison further emphasized that the House of Representatives holds the power to impeach any “unworthy officeholder,” irrespective of presidential preference. The framers, having rejected tyrannical rule in favor of a system of representative government, would likely view Secretary Mayorkas’s alleged refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust as precisely the kind of conduct warranting impeachment. He embodies the type of public official for whom this constitutional power was designed. The focus now shifts to the Senate, which is tasked with reviewing the House’s decision and determining whether to convict Secretary Mayorkas, thereby completing the impeachment process.
