Hegseth rejects impeachment effort as Congress prepares to vote

War Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed back Tuesday against an effort to impeach him, arguing that lawmakers are trying to turn disputes over President Donald Trump’s military policies into grounds for removal.

The House is expected to vote on eight articles accusing the Pentagon chief of breaking federal law and abusing his authority. At a Pentagon news conference, Hegseth said the allegations amounted to policy disagreements, not the kind of serious misconduct the Constitution’s impeachment clause was meant to address.

He argued that Congress should respond to disagreements through legislation and debate, or let voters decide at the next presidential election.

The resolution, introduced Monday by Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who is leaving office, goes further than criticism of the administration’s military strategy. It accuses Hegseth of violating Congress’s war powers, authorizing unlawful operations and retaliating against a senator for exercising his constitutional rights.

Massie’s eight articles focus on several disputed national security decisions. Three concern the war with Iran, alleging Hegseth began hostilities without congressional approval, continued operations after Congress sought to end them and ignored legal deadlines for withdrawing U.S. forces.

Other claims involve the protection of civilians, including a strike on an Iranian school, and U.S. military attacks on suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean. The resolution also alleges Hegseth retaliated against Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, after Kelly appeared in a video urging service members not to follow unlawful orders.

Massie has rejected the idea that his effort is simply a judgment on Hegseth’s performance or the administration’s policies. He said the question was whether the secretary committed impeachable acts, and claimed the answer was yes in all eight instances.

Constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley said most of the articles appeared weak, arguing that six should be dismissed, including those related to Iran. He said Congress has a valid interest in asserting its war powers, but suggested Massie was trying to use impeachment to resolve a longstanding dispute over how much authority presidents have to launch military operations without congressional approval.

Presidents from both parties, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have claimed broad authority to conduct military operations without prior approval from Congress, Turley noted. He argued that impeachment was not the way to litigate that broader question, and that Trump was exercising power claimed by earlier presidents as well.

Vice President JD Vance also defended Hegseth, saying the allegations did not amount to impeachable crimes. He argued that Congress has other ways to express disagreement but was choosing impeachment instead.

Vance suggested the effort was not primarily about Iran. In his view, it reflected opposition to Hegseth’s broader changes at the Pentagon, including shifting U.S. forces away from Europe and Ukraine and restructuring senior military leadership.

Turley dismissed the allegation concerning the capture of former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, citing legal precedent related to the U.S. seizure of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. But he singled out two other claims as more troubling: the maritime strikes on suspected drug traffickers and Hegseth’s treatment of Kelly.

Turley said an alleged “double tap” strike could amount to a war crime if the claim were proven, while noting that Trump and Hegseth have denied such orders were given. He also said the response to Kelly’s video raised serious questions about a senator’s free-speech rights and the possibility of improper pressure from military leadership.

Even so, Turley said he was not ready to conclude that either allegation met the constitutional standard for impeachment. He said he wanted to see the underlying evidence, adding that both claims could be serious but might be difficult to establish as high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Constitution allows impeachment for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors; the standard does not require proof of a criminal offense. Congress has treated serious abuses of official power as possible grounds for impeachment, though the limits of that authority remain disputed.

That leaves a distinction at the heart of the fight: disagreement with a defense secretary’s military decisions is not necessarily impeachable misconduct, but knowingly breaking the law or abusing official power could raise a different constitutional issue.

Hegseth has said the operations named in the resolution were lawful and carried out under the president’s direction. He said he stood by each one and would carry them out again.

Trump praised Hegseth after the news conference and criticized Massie, who lost his Republican primary earlier this year. White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said Hegseth had helped strengthen the U.S. military, supported operations against Iran and Maduro, and worked to protect the country from terrorist groups and cartels. She accused Massie and Democrats of using the matter for political purposes rather than focusing on Americans’ lives.

Several Trump administration officials, including Collins, Burgum, Rollins, Mullin and Turner, posted messages backing Hegseth. Marco Rubio said Hegseth had carried out Trump’s orders effectively, while Todd Blanche said he had done nothing illegal or wrong.

The House is expected to vote Tuesday evening on whether to advance Massie’s resolution. Impeachment requires a simple majority in the House; removing Hegseth would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate. The vote will show whether lawmakers consider the allegations grounds for impeachment or a dispute better handled through Congress’s legislative and oversight powers.