Why Pete Hegseth Faces Impeachment

Thomas Massie is pushing the House to impeach Pete Hegseth, the Cabinet member most closely associated with the Iran war. The representative from Kentucky’s argument is that if Republicans like him don’t hold the secretary of defense accountable now for his various abuses of power, Democrats will in January. A vote in the House could come as soon as this evening.

Massie, who was ousted by a Trump-backed primary opponent earlier this year, introduced his articles of impeachment against the defense secretary yesterday. It is Massie’s second attempt, following an unsuccessful effort in September. That time around, House Speaker Mike Johnson sent lawmakers home for recess instead of allowing a vote. Senator Ted Cruz said yesterday on his podcast that Johnson’s move was in part motivated by the fact that Republicans “didn’t have the votes to stop a Hegseth impeachment.” This time could end differently: Although most Republicans are likely to close ranks behind the GOP defense secretary in the middle of a war, only a few defections would create a majority for impeachment.

The eight articles in Massie’s impeachment resolution focus primarily on four issues: the Iran war, the Pentagon’s campaign of boat strikes, Hegseth’s attempt to punish lawmakers for warning service members not to follow illegal orders, and the military operation in January to capture the Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. In each case, Massie’s charges say that Hegseth either violated the law or engaged in disqualifying conduct while carrying out President Trump’s agenda.

Congress has only ever impeached two Cabinet secretaries: Secretary of War William W. Belknap, in 1876, and President Biden’s homeland-security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, in 2024. The Senate did not convict in either case; conviction requires a two-thirds majority.

Hegseth already looked likely to be the third Cabinet member ever to face the proceeding, now that a new Democratic majority will arrive in Congress in January. Hakeem Jeffries, the presumed next speaker of the House, said on the campaign trail that Democrats were ready to run the Pentagon chief “out of town.” Jeffries posted on Sunday that, when it comes to impeachment, he’s a “Hard Yes.” Other Democrats have also come out as enthusiastic backers. Pat Ryan, a former Army intelligence officer from New York, posted on social media that Hegseth “better buckle up and lawyer up.” Trump, meanwhile, has affirmed his support for Hegseth, telling reporters last week that he “has done a fantastic job.”

Hegseth responded to the filing of the impeachment resolution at a Pentagon press conference today—his first in more than 180 days—arguing that any criticism of him was actually an attack on U.S. troops. “If they want to come for the warriors, they’re going to have to come through me,” he said. “What one disgruntled and defeated congressman is attempting is not oversight, and it’s not accountability. It’s a political spectacle, a personal manifesto driven by ego and resentment.” The impeachment effort, Hegseth said, was intended to “do damage to this president, this country, and, most irresponsibly, the warriors who defend it.” Hegseth added that every military operation mentioned in the Massie resolution had been approved by Trump, while emphasizing the president’s past impeachments and subsequent reelection. (Trump was impeached twice, in 2019 and 2021, by the Democratic-controlled House; although bipartisan majorities voted to convict him in the Senate, they fell short of the necessary two-thirds.)

Trump responded to the press conference with a vote of confidence in Hegseth. “Pete Hegseth gets an ‘A’ PLUS, PLUS, PLUS for his defense against a disgruntled, angry, defeated, former Congressman, Thomas Massie, a TOTAL LOSER!,” he posted to social media minutes after the event wrapped. In a separate post last night, he described Hegseth as “perhaps the most popular and successful military official in the Country.”

[Read: Democrats are ready to run Hegseth ‘out of town’]

Massie has used the prospect of an incoming Democratic majority to argue for a vote on his resolution now. His resolution, he said on social media, “is a much gentler version” of what may come. The House has two legislative days to act on the measure. Its options include proceeding to a floor vote by simple majority, voting to dismiss the resolution, or voting to refer it to a House committee to conduct hearings and gather additional evidence.

Here’s what is in Massie’s articles of impeachment:

Articles I, II, and III

When the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran in late February, Trump didn’t consult Congress. Lawmakers had not authorized the strikes or approved a declaration of war. The War Powers Resolution, a law passed in 1973, allows the commander in chief to bypass congressional authority under limited circumstances largely related to self-defense. But early administration claims of an imminent threat from Iran quickly fell apart. Even in those cases where a president can act unilaterally, the president is required to terminate hostilities within 60 days or certify to Congress that conflict is unavoidable to gain an extension of up to 30 days. The administration did neither. Its decision to go to war without congressional approval forms the basis of Massie’s first three reasons Hegseth should be impeached. (Hegseth maintained today that “history will judge the Iran war quite differently than conventional wisdom right now.”)

Article IV

The fourth article is also tied to Hegseth’s conduct in the Iran war, but includes a specific accusation: that Hegseth purposefully degraded the Department of Defense’s safeguards against killing civilians. In the first hours of the war, a U.S. strike killed about 170 people at a primary school in Minab; U.S. officials have said the tragedy was caused in part by outdated intelligence.

Hegseth has dismantled offices at the Pentagon that helped the military protect civilians during combat. Staffing at the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, a Pentagon body created by law in 2023, was reduced by about 90 percent, our colleague Missy Ryan reported. Hegseth has called rules of engagement meant to limit accidental deaths “stupid” and advocated for the military to embody “maximum lethality, not tepid legality”—two quotes that Massie cites.

Massie also suggested that the deterioration of journalistic oversight weakened the public’s understanding of harm to civilians. Hegseth imposed new, restrictive rules on the Pentagon press corps and expelled from the building journalists who wouldn’t comply. (These included staff writers at The Atlantic.) His actions eroded the Pentagon’s systems for limiting “collateral damage to civilians,” Massie wrote, and Hegseth “effected the murder of civilians and abused the trust of the men and women under his command.”

At his press conference today, Hegseth said that “the only people who target civilians are the terrorists that we hunt, and I will dignify this claim no further.” Responding to criticism about the weakening of the Pentagon’s civilian-harm-mitigation efforts, a spokesperson had previously said that “the Department remains committed to minimizing civilian harm caused by military operations and to meeting all relevant statutory requirements.”

[Read: Why is the Pentagon afraid of the press?]

Article V

Massie argues in this provision that Hegseth used the power of his office “in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 243 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics.” The military’s strikes on small boats off the coast of Latin America began in September 2025. The most recent strike, late last month, killed five people. The Trump administration has claimed that the strikes targeted boats transporting drugs for cartels. But officials have not presented evidence to substantiate that. Transporting drugs is not a capital offense under U.S. law.

Hegseth “chilled independent legal review” in the Defense Department, Massie alleges, and relied on a “purported legal basis for the use of military force.” That refers to a memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that reportedly recasts cartel associates as legitimate targets in an “armed conflict.” (The memo has not been made public.) Many legal experts, including former military lawyers, have described the boat-strike campaign as a clear violation of both U.S. and international law. Nor does it appear to have achieved its stated purpose of reducing the flow of drugs into the U.S.; some evidence suggests that the flow of cocaine has actually increased over the past year. Hegseth has defended the campaign as part of an effort to secure “our Homeland from the drugs that are killing our people.” And the White House had told us previously that the boat strikes reflect how “President Trump is using every tool at his disposal to save lives from the scourge of illicit narcotics.”

Article VI

Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona appeared in a video in November 2025 along with five other Democratic members of Congress who had served in national-security roles before taking office. They reminded members of the military and the intelligence community of their obligation to “refuse illegal orders.” Their message was posted on social media after the Trump administration had deployed troops in several U.S. cities and conducted more than 20 lethal strikes in the drug-boats campaign.

Hegseth retaliated against Kelly with a formal letter of censure and directed the secretary of the Navy to review whether Kelly had engaged in “potentially unlawful” conduct. (Kelly served as a Navy pilot for more than two decades.) He has also threatened to reduce Kelly’s military-retirement rank and pay. The matter is being litigated in court. Massie accuses Hegseth of retaliation against a member of Congress for engaging in constitutionally protected speech and for exercising his responsibilities as a lawmaker.

[Read: ‘An example MUST BE SET’]

Massie also argues that Hegseth ignored the separation of powers by placing the Department of Defense above the legislative and judicial branches. Hegseth, in turn, has accused Kelly of making “seditious” statements and said that he and the other lawmakers were “encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders,” which “sows doubt and confusion” and “only puts our warriors in danger.”

Article VII

Massie alleges that Hegseth overstepped his authority by using the Department of Defense to capture Maduro, the president of Venezuela, along with his wife, Cilia Flores. In the early hours of January 3, the U.S. military launched strikes across Venezuela and captured Maduro, transporting him to New York City, where he was indicted on multiple charges, including narcoterrorism. He awaits trial in a federal jail. Members of Congress, including senior lawmakers, learned about the seizure when the public did. The article claims that Hegseth violated his “constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” because the U.S. had not declared war.

The Trump administration has argued that no congressional notice was required because the strikes and the seizure of Maduro were a law-enforcement operation, not an act of war. (Trump also said that he kept members in the dark because “Congress has a tendency to leak.”) Massie argues that the real purpose of the operation was to control Venezuelan oil reserves and that it amounted to an act of war because it led to Venezuelan regime change and significant casualties. About 80 people, including civilians, were killed.

Article VIII

The final article accuses Hegseth of responsibility for civilian casualties and another unlawful war—in this case, in Yemen. By initiating and directing Operation Rough Rider—months of strikes against the Houthi rebel group in the spring of 2025—Hegseth violated the War Powers Resolution, Massie claims. The strikes led to the deaths of an estimated 224 civilians and hundreds of Houthi fighters.

Massie argues that the operation was illegal because the administration bypassed required congressional authorization. He has an unusual primary source to reference: the Signal group chat in which Hegseth and other top administration officials coordinated the strikes—while unwittingly sharing their plans with the editor in chief of this magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg. In the chat, Vice President Vance wrote that “there is a strong argument” for delaying the operation by a month, and Joe Kent, then the acting chief of staff to the director of national intelligence, said, “There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line.” Hegseth himself at one point chimed in, saying that “we can easily pause” the plans. The administration has defended that operation as furthering American “national security and foreign policy interests.” In a letter to House Speaker Johnson in late March 2025, Trump wrote that Houthi militants had “perpetrated piratical aggressions” and continued to “threaten and attack United States forces” in and around Yemen, as well as “commercial vessels in one of the most important shipping lanes in the world.”

Nancy A. Youssef and Missy Ryan contributed to this story.