Republican Thomas Massie introduces eight articles of impeachment over military operations in Iran and other countries. Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries supports the effort, while President Trump and Republican leaders defend Hegseth ahead of a possible House vote.
Republican Representative Thomas Massie introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday, November 9, 2026, accusing him of violating the Constitution and exceeding his authority during military operations abroad. The resolution could receive a House vote as early as Wednesday, placing one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent Cabinet members under renewed scrutiny.
The Kentucky congressman presented the resolution on the House floor, where he spent approximately 80 minutes reading the charges. They include allegations that Hegseth conducted military operations against Iran without congressional authorization, disregarded protections for civilians and violated the constitutional rights of a Democratic senator.
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has publicly endorsed the impeachment effort. Meanwhile, Trump has pledged to stand by Hegseth, and Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has criticized the timing of the resolution.
The dispute comes one week after the November 3 midterm elections, in which Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress for the legislative session beginning in January. Republicans still control the House and Senate during the current lame-duck session, making the immediate outcome uncertain.
Massie Files Eight Articles of Impeachment
Massie, a Republican from Kentucky who has frequently disagreed with Trump over federal spending and foreign policy, argues that Hegseth violated constitutional limits on executive military power. The resolution identifies eight alleged violations involving military operations and the treatment of political opponents.
The first three articles focus on the U.S. military campaign against Iran, which began on February 28, 2026. Massie contends that Hegseth helped initiate and continue the fighting without the congressional authorization required under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The measure also alleges that Hegseth continued military operations after Congress passed resolutions calling for the withdrawal of American forces. Massie argues that the administration exceeded statutory time limits governing military involvement without congressional approval.
Other articles address U.S. operations in Venezuela, Yemen, the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean. They accuse Hegseth of directing or overseeing military actions that Massie considers unlawful under federal law and international humanitarian standards.
One article specifically challenges strikes against vessels suspected of transporting illegal drugs. The resolution alleges that American forces carried out extrajudicial killings, including attacks involving people who survived earlier strikes.
Another article concerns military operations in Yemen and the reported deaths of civilians. Massie argues that those strikes lacked sufficient congressional authorization and were not justified by an immediate threat to the United States.
These are allegations contained in an impeachment resolution, not findings established by a court. The administration disputes the broader criticism of its military operations and maintains that its actions have supported American national security.
Senator Mark Kelly Dispute Becomes Part of the Case
The impeachment resolution also accuses Hegseth of violating the free speech rights of Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. The allegation concerns a dispute that began after Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers released a video discussing unlawful military orders.
The lawmakers, several of whom had military or intelligence backgrounds, reminded service members that they are not required to obey illegal orders. Their message became a political controversy after Trump and Hegseth accused them of undermining military discipline.
Hegseth subsequently sought action against Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut. Massie’s resolution argues that the response amounted to retaliation against a senator for constitutionally protected speech.
The dispute raises questions about the boundaries between military discipline and political expression. Service members are required to follow lawful orders, but military law also recognizes that clearly unlawful orders must not be obeyed.
Massie’s impeachment filing treats the government’s response to Kelly as a separate allegation of abuse of power. Whether that conduct meets the constitutional standard for impeachment would be determined through the congressional process.
Jeffries Supports Impeachment as Democrats Prepare to Take Control
Jeffries endorsed the effort during an appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, November 8. Asked whether he would support impeaching Hegseth, the New York Democrat described himself as a “hard yes.”
He accused Hegseth of misusing his authority and damaging national security through the administration’s military campaign in Iran. Jeffries also linked the war to higher consumer prices and the political backlash Republicans experienced in the midterm elections.
Several other Democrats have expressed support for removing the defense secretary. Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, has also indicated that he supports Massie’s resolution.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has called for Hegseth to face a Senate trial. Democrats are preparing to assume control of both chambers in January, potentially giving them greater authority to investigate Pentagon leadership and military decisions.
Massie’s decision to introduce the resolution before that transition is significant. It gives lawmakers an opportunity to address the allegations while Republicans still hold the House majority.
Although Democrats are expected to support the measure, Republican votes would likely be necessary for passage during the current session. Massie has suggested that some members of his own party may support impeachment, but no outcome has been established.
Trump and Republican Leaders Defend Hegseth
Trump rejected the impeachment effort during an interview with Reuters on Monday. He pointed to American military operations in Iran and Venezuela as evidence that Hegseth has performed successfully as defense secretary.
The president said Hegseth had helped win two wars and questioned why Congress would consider impeaching him. Trump later told reporters at the White House that he would continue supporting Hegseth even if the House approved impeachment articles.
Those statements reflect the president’s assessment of the military campaigns. They do not establish that the operations complied with every constitutional or statutory requirement raised in Massie’s resolution.
Johnson also opposed the effort, arguing that pursuing impeachment during ongoing military hostilities could send a damaging message to American allies and adversaries. His opposition places Republican leadership at odds with Massie.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended Hegseth as well. Rubio described the impeachment push as unfair and praised the defense secretary’s leadership during recent military operations.
Hegseth has rejected the allegations and indicated that he intends to remain in office. In a video released before the resolution was introduced, he characterized the effort as politically motivated and compared it with previous impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Speaking to reporters Monday, Hegseth said he was not concerned about whether enough Republicans would support him. He also announced plans to hold a Pentagon news conference on Tuesday.
What Happens Next in the Impeachment Process?
Massie introduced the resolution as a question involving the privileges of the House, a procedure intended to force prompt consideration. Under House rules, leadership generally must address a properly raised privileged resolution within two legislative days.
That does not necessarily mean lawmakers will hold a direct vote on whether Hegseth should be impeached. Republican leaders could instead propose tabling the resolution or referring it to a committee.
A successful motion to table would stop the immediate effort without requiring lawmakers to vote directly on each allegation. Referring the measure to committee could also delay further action.
If the House considers the impeachment resolution itself, a simple majority would be required to approve it. Approval would make Hegseth formally impeached, but it would not automatically remove him from office.
The Senate would then be responsible for considering the charges. A conviction and removal would require support from two-thirds of senators present, a substantially higher threshold than the House impeachment vote.
Impeachment of a Cabinet official is unusual in American history. Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876, while Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the House in 2024.
The Senate acquitted Belknap and dismissed the Mayorkas charges without a trial. Both cases illustrate the difference between a House impeachment vote and a Senate decision to remove an official.
Massie’s resolution is now positioned for consideration during a politically sensitive period for Congress. The immediate question is whether House leaders will allow a vote on the eight articles or use a procedural motion to prevent the measure from advancing.
IMAGE: Pete Hegseth speaking at an event in West Palm Beach, Florida.. Photo: Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia, taken 2018-12-20, CC BY-SA 3.0