House Speaker Adjourns Early Amid Impeachment Discussion

There’s some speculation about why House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, decided to send lawmakers home a day early this week. This decision follows the House cutting two weeks from its schedule for later this month and early October.

“We’re adjusting the House schedule by a day. Let me explain: the House has completed its work,” Johnson said as members left Capitol Hill early on Wednesday night. “House Republicans are going back to our districts to communicate with the American people about what we’ve achieved on their behalf.”

The House is slated to reconvene only on November 9, right after the midterm elections.

However, outgoing Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, has a different take on the early adjournment. He introduced eight impeachment articles against Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth. Since Massie’s impeachment push is deemed “privileged,” the House had a maximum of 48 hours to act on the articles.

“I figured out why we canceled tomorrow,” Massie stated. “Tomorrow was meant for the vote to impeach Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth. It appears that vote won’t take place now.”

A senior House Republican had communicated last week that members would remain in Washington for a full week. Yet by Wednesday, the House had aligned with the Senate to pass a Russia sanctions bill and backed legislation aimed at shielding consumers from escalating electricity and water costs due to data centers. There were bipartisan calls for the House to stay in session to discuss rising concerns about AI, but the number of active discussions dwindled.

Except for Massie’s impeachment measure against Hegseth.

Now, you can ponder why Johnson cut the session short—on top of the already planned two-week reduction in time.

Massie’s reaction was clear: “Exactly what I thought would happen,” he remarked on the House floor. “Why did he just take another day off the calendar?”

After Massie’s speech, I caught up with him. “Do you think they adjourned to prevent the vote on Hegseth?” I asked. He replied, “Chad, they truncated the calendar to stop me from getting to 218 votes on the Epstein discharge petition. And then I introduced eight articles of impeachment against Peter Hegseth with a tight 48-hour window.” He continued, “They cut tomorrow off to avoid that vote.”

Here’s how the parliamentary situation works:

If the House had gathered on Thursday, it would have had to deliberate on Massie’s impeachment articles, or the resolution would simply lapse. That 48-hour window for privileged resolutions vanishes. Sure, Massie could bring them up when the House reconvenes in November, but that’s weeks away.

If, hypothetically, the House met and was forced to consider Massie’s articles, Republicans likely would have made a “motion to table” to effectively block his initiative. This process means that the vote would not actually focus on the impeachment of Hegseth, but rather on whether to set aside Massie’s plan altogether.

If the motion to table succeeded, that would end the matter without ever addressing the impeachment articles themselves. The House wouldn’t even engage in an up-or-down vote on whether to impeach Hegseth.

But if the motion to table failed? That would mean the House would immediately move to the impeachment articles themselves. The prospect of Hegseth facing eight votes on impeachment could arise, despite the absence of investigations or formal hearings. The Constitution doesn’t mandate any lengthy procedural steps for impeachment—if a simple majority in the House votes to impeach, that’s it.

That’s the rub.

This is likely why Republicans would have opted to table Massie’s impeachment articles. A vote to table shields Members from making a tough decision on the core issue. It’s worth noting there are House Republicans who are irritated with Hegseth and troubled by the ongoing conflict in Iran. This type of vote would place them in a complicated situation, especially since many Democrats might support impeachment.

I asked Massie how he thought the motion to table would go. “That would have put them in a difficult position. If they had to vote on that, might it have passed?” He responded, “A vote on a motion to table—he might not have survived that vote,” Massie said.

In other words, Massie believes the House could have successfully defeated the motion to table, leading to votes on the impeachment. From his view, this is exactly why Johnson sent the House home. You might recall a bipartisan attempt from last summer by Massie and Representative Ro Khanna to push for the release of the Epstein files. Johnson had also dismissed the House early for summer break back then. Later, he kept the House out during much of a 43-day government shutdown while similar discussions were ongoing.

When Congress eventually reconvened in mid-November, one of the first actions taken was to vote overwhelmingly in favor of requiring the file release. The only dissenting vote came from Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana.

Even with no votes set until early November, Massie remains a sitting member. He’ll serve through the lame-duck session into January, even after losing his primary to Republican Ed Gallrein, who received support from Donald Trump. Interestingly, Hegseth even campaigned for Gallrein in northern Kentucky this past spring.

It’s uncertain whether the impeachment articles against Hegseth will resurface later this fall or winter. But for now, Massie is still in the House, and whether Johnson adjourned to sidestep a vote on those articles will linger as a topic of discussion.