Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faces eight articles of impeachment introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky. They accuse him of violating federal law and the Constitution by carrying out military operations against Iran, Venezuela and Yemen, killing civilians and retaliating against a sitting U.S. senator.
Three of the charges relate to the war with Iran, which Mr. Massie said was illegal from the start. The remaining articles focus on decisions Mr. Hegseth made in his oversight of the Pentagon, including removing protections against civilian casualties and military strikes against suspected drug traffickers in the Pacific and Caribbean.
“We are not indicting him for doing his job poorly,” Mr. Massie said at a news conference on Capitol Hill Monday after reading his resolution on the House floor. “In fact, he was very effective in killing schoolchildren in Iran. The argument here is that he broke the laws and the Constitution.”
Mr. Hegseth held a news conference Tuesday morning in which he called the reports slanderous attempts by a “disgruntled and defeated congressman,” and the Pentagon said it would “not back down or be deterred.”
President Trump defended Mr. Hegseth on Sunday, saying: “He is guilty of two things, basically winning two wars. »
Here’s a closer look at the accusations, with excerpts from each.
Article I: Starting war with Iran without congressional authorization
Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and implemented illegal orders to initiate war against a foreign nation despite the absence of congressional authorization, an attack on the United States giving rise to the national emergency contemplated by law, or an imminent threat requiring immediate defensive action, thereby substituting illegal Executive action for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress.
The first charge invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was passed over a veto and limits the president’s ability to initiate or intensify military actions abroad without congressional consent.
It claims the war, which began Feb. 28 when U.S. forces launched joint strikes with Israel against Iran, was illegal from the start because it did not meet any of the conditions set out in the statute for authorizing conflict. These include a declaration of war, congressional approval for the use of military force, or an attack on the United States.
The resolution references the March 17 resignation of Joe Kent, who was director of the National Counterterrorism Center at the time, and said Iran poses no imminent threat to the United States.
The administration has argued that the president has the constitutional authority, under his powers as commander in chief, to conduct the military campaign without any congressional action.
Article II: Defy Congressional Vote to End the War in Iran
Secretary Hegseth has carried out, and continues to do, illegal orders in violation of Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1544(c) of Title 50, United States Code.
The House voted June 3 to withdraw U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. On June 23, the Senate approved the same measure, a concurrent resolution that itself did not have the force of law but was a clear statement of Congressional opposition to continued conflict.
Mr. Massie contends that the votes satisfied a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires the withdrawal of U.S. troops if Congress passes a competing resolution ordering it. By ignoring the measure, Mr Massie said, Mr Hegseth acted “in breach” of the War Powers Act.
“The law is in force,” he said Monday. “Pete Hegseth is obligated to follow the laws that exist, not the laws he wants to follow.”
There is legal uncertainty around such an accusation. A 1983 Supreme Court ruling, INS v. Chadha, casts doubt on the mechanisms of Congress that attempt to bind the executive branch without presenting legislation to the President for his signature, which the competing resolutions do not require.
Article III: Continuing the war in Iran beyond the legal deadline
Direct the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory termination requirement as discretionary.
The third article focuses on a 60-day deadline in the War Powers Act that determines when military action not authorized by Congress must end. The statute provides an additional 30 days in limited circumstances if necessary to facilitate the safe withdrawal of U.S. forces. Mr. Trump and his administration ignored both deadlines, arguing that they were not bound by law.
The president and his advisers have repeatedly asserted that the war is over, including in May, after about 60 days, when they declared Operation Epic Fury, the original mission, “concluded” in a ceasefire, then classified subsequent attacks as a separate military operation.
“The war was never over,” Mr. Massie said. “There has never been a legitimate end to the war. »
Article IV: Circumvent the laws to avoid the death of civilians
By running the Department of Defense in a manner that predictably dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian property from military objectives, Secretary Hegseth thereby committed the murder of civilians and abused the trust of the men and women under his command by requiring them to conduct military operations under a system of targeting and legal oversight that he had deliberately degraded.
The article accuses Mr. Hegseth of ignoring Congress-mandated safeguards against civilian deaths and injuries, including defunding the Army’s database that tracks them, eliminating the majority of personnel responsible for overseeing civilian harm mitigation, and laying off military lawyers in several branches.
It seeks to link these actions to the bombing of the Shajarah Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, Iran, on the opening day of the war, which Iranian officials say killed at least 175 people, most of them children.
The resolution cites Mr. Hegseth’s remarks at a news conference he held days after the war began, when he said there would be no “stupid rules of engagement” in the conflict.
It also references a statement from the secretary of state last year, touting a force focused on “maximum lethality, not lukewarm legality.”
Article V: Committing extrajudicial assassinations on a drug boat
Secretary Hegseth has assumed the roles of judge, jury, and executioner for himself and the executive branch and has asserted unilateral authority to determine who can live and who can die.
This article challenges the administration’s strikes against suspected narco-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific Ocean, which began in September 2025. It accuses Mr. Hegseth of portraying himself as an “executioner” who led the extrajudicial killings of at least 221 people during more than 60 strikes.
The article highlights a Sept. 2 attack in which U.S. forces launched a so-called “double strike” that killed two survivors clinging to the rubble of a first strike, calling it “contrary to U.S. law and customary international law.”
The administration has defended the operations as necessary to combat dangerous trafficking organizations, but the resolution says the campaign exceeded the Pentagon’s legal authority and endangered U.S. service members by encouraging adversaries to ignore protections for survivors.
Article VI: Targeting Senator Mark Kelly
Using the powers of his office, Secretary Hegseth retaliated and sought to intimidate U.S. Senator Mark Kelly for his statement through a scheme or conduct intended to interfere with Congress’s constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch.
The sixth accusation concerns Mr. Hegseth’s response to a November 2025 video in which Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and a group of other Democratic lawmakers informed troops that they could refuse illegal orders.
After Mr. Trump accused Mr. Kelly, a retired Navy captain, of sedition and called for him to be hanged for his comments, Mr. Hegseth echoed the rebukes, censured the senator and initiated disciplinary proceedings that could result in the reduction of his military rank and pension.
Mr. Kelly sued Mr. Hegseth, accusing the defense secretary of violating his right to free speech, and a federal judge agreed and blocked the sanction, although the Justice Department appealed the decision.
The resolution characterizes the actions against Mr. Kelly as retaliation for protected speech and a public campaign to intimidate a sitting member of Congress.
Article VII: Abduction of a foreign leader
An act of war against a sovereign country carried out under cover of drug repression
This article discusses the January 3 military operation that captured President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The operation involved more than 150 planes and drones and hundreds of American troops. The Trump administration has repeatedly said the mission was a law enforcement operation related to federal indictments, but the impeachment charge calls it “an unauthorized act of war against a sovereign country carried out under the guise of drug enforcement.”
Article VIII: Starting an unauthorized war in Yemen
Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed Operation Rough Rider without congressional authority.
The final article challenges the administration’s military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen in the spring of 2025, saying it was also an unauthorized operation launched without congressional approval or an imminent threat to the United States.
The campaign aimed to end attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. This was associated with an early scandal involving Mr. Hegseth, in which he and other senior administration officials discussed planned military strikes in a group chat inadvertently attended by a reporter.
Gn usa
