AJR26 is an Assembly Joint Resolution that asks the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, to resign and urges the U.S. Congress to pursue impeachment if she does not step down. The measure frames the request as a response to conduct the Legislature says undermines the credibility of the Department of Homeland Security and the rule of law.
The resolution is a nonbinding, formal statement by the California Legislature intended to put public pressure on federal actors and to prompt congressional oversight and potential impeachment proceedings by invoking constitutional grounds for removal.
At a Glance
What It Does
The text assembles a set of factual findings about the Secretary’s conduct and directs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to send copies of the resolution to the President, Vice President, congressional leaders, and every member of Congress from California. It relies on the constitutional impeachment clause as the legal frame for its request to federal actors.
Who It Affects
The resolution targets the Secretary of Homeland Security and signals to the U.S. Congress and federal leadership that the California Legislature expects accountability. It also calls attention to communities and investigators identified in the findings, and to California’s federal delegation by requiring formal transmittal.
Why It Matters
This is a state-level, formal rebuke of a sitting federal official that uses legislative findings to pressure federal institutions. For government affairs and compliance professionals, it exemplifies how state legislatures can escalate oversight by recording formal positions for transmission to federal decision-makers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AJR26 compiles a series of "whereas" findings that characterize Secretary Kristi Noem’s conduct in office as inconsistent with the duties of her federal office. The resolution identifies alleged interference with criminal investigations, alleges that the Secretary made false or inflammatory public statements about two murders, and asserts that Department policies under her leadership have harmed vulnerable immigrant communities and eroded due process.
Those factual assertions form the factual predicate the resolution uses to justify seeking accountability.
The resolution explicitly invokes the removal clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 4) as the constitutional framework for recommending impeachment to Congress. It does not itself initiate any federal proceeding—rather, it frames the Legislature’s judgment that the Secretary’s conduct meets the type of misconduct that the framers contemplated as grounds for impeachment and removal.Practically, the only operational instruction in the text is administrative: the Chief Clerk of the Assembly is to transmit copies of the resolution to the President, the Vice President, congressional leadership in both chambers, and all members of California’s congressional delegation.
That administrative step turns the Legislature’s political judgment into a documented record sent directly to federal actors.Because this measure is a joint resolution of a state legislature, it carries no enforcement power over federal officials and creates no statutory changes. Its force is political and communicative: it is intended to crystallize the Legislature’s findings in a short, transferable document that federal officials and the public can reference in ongoing oversight or impeachment deliberations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AJR26 is a joint resolution introduced in the California Legislature (Assembly Joint Resolution No. 26).
The text names two specific criminal cases—those of Alex Pretti and Renée Good—and alleges that the Secretary interfered with investigations and made unsupported, inflammatory statements about those murders.
The resolution expressly cites Section 4 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution (the impeachment and removal clause) as the constitutional basis for urging congressional action.
It contains findings that DHS actions under the Secretary have, in the Legislature’s view, inflicted harm on vulnerable immigrant communities and eroded due process protections.
The only administrative directive instructs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of the resolution to the President, Vice President, House and Senate leaders, and every member of Congress from California.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and factual assertions about the Secretary’s conduct
This section collects the Legislature’s factual premises: it states that the Secretary holds duties to uphold the Constitution and asserts that she has broken her oath. The clauses name two murders, accuse the Secretary of interfering with those criminal investigations and making false or inflammatory statements, and claim that DHS policies under her leadership have harmed immigrant communities and eroded due process. Practical implication: these statements are framed as legislative findings, not judicial findings, and they establish the moral and factual basis the Legislature uses to justify its demands.
Formal request for resignation
This operative clause communicates the Legislature’s demand that the Secretary resign. Mechanically, it is a nonbinding political request—there is no statutory mechanism to compel a federal official to resign. The clause’s practical value is as a public and documented expression of the State’s position that may be used in political and media forums to increase pressure on the official or to inform federal oversight bodies.
Request that Congress pursue impeachment if resignation does not occur
This clause urges the United States Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings if the Secretary does not step down. Again, it contains no procedural effect on federal institutions; it serves as a formal appeal to Congress and as a record that the State has asked federal representatives to consider impeachment. Its main consequence is communicative: it signals to California’s federal delegation and national leaders that the State legislature believes the conduct may meet constitutional grounds for removal.
Transmission to federal leaders
The final operative language instructs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of the resolution to the President and Vice President, congressional leaders in both chambers, and every U.S. Senator and Representative from California. This is the only administrative step the resolution mandates: it creates a contemporaneous paper trail and ensures that federal offices receive an official statement of the Legislature’s position.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims’ families and advocates: The resolution publicly acknowledges alleged mishandling or interference in the named criminal cases, which may validate requests these stakeholders have already made for review and oversight.
- Advocates for immigrant due process: By documenting claims that DHS policies harmed vulnerable immigrant communities, the resolution amplifies concerns raised by immigrant-rights groups and may increase political leverage for further oversight.
- California legislators and political actors who seek accountability: The measure gives state lawmakers a formal instrument to demonstrate action on a high-profile federal matter and to show responsiveness to constituent concerns.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Secretary of Homeland Security and senior DHS leadership: The resolution increases political pressure and reputational costs by formally accusing them of oath-breaking and misconduct.
- Federal oversight bodies and Congress: Receiving an official state resolution increases expectations for review or response and may add to the administrative and political workload for congressional offices and committees.
- State administrative staff: The Chief Clerk and legislative staff must execute the mandated transmittals and manage any follow-up correspondence or records created by the resolution, a minor administrative cost.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the Legislature’s desire to register strong, formal disapproval and prompt federal accountability for alleged misconduct, and the constitutional and institutional reality that impeachment and personnel decisions are federal responsibilities requiring evidentiary processes; the resolution can amplify concern but cannot substitute for the investigatory and constitutional mechanisms required to remove a federal officer.
There are two practical limits built into AJR26. First, it is nonbinding with respect to federal personnel actions: a state legislature cannot remove or compel resignation of a federal executive branch official.
The resolution’s only enforceable action is administrative transmittal to federal leaders. Second, the factual assertions are legislative findings rather than adjudicated facts; they signal the Legislature’s position but do not alter legal or evidentiary standards for federal investigations, prosecutions, or impeachment proceedings.
Implementation and downstream effects are uncertain. The resolution may increase political pressure on federal actors or provide a documented basis for congressional oversight, but it also risks further politicizing criminal investigations and impeachment discourse.
Because the text does not attach a record of evidence to its allegations beyond the "whereas" findings, federal actors asked to act on the resolution will have to decide whether the Legislature’s findings warrant formal inquiry, additional evidence-gathering, or no action at all. Those decisions will depend on the standards and procedures of the receiving federal bodies, not on the resolution itself.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.