Pete Hegseth Impeachment: Eight Articles Filed, House Vote Due by Wednesday

On Monday 9 November 2026, the US House of Representatives acquired a deadline. Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, stood on the House floor in the afternoon, read out a 34-page resolution, and refiled eight articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The resolution charges Hegseth with "high crimes and misdemeanors" — the constitutional standard for impeachment — and because Massie filed it as a privileged resolution, House leaders have two legislative days to act. A vote — on the articles themselves, on a motion to table them, or on a motion to refer them to a committee — is expected by Wednesday 11 November.

Hegseth said on Monday that he is not worried and will defend his record at a Pentagon press conference on Tuesday. President Trump has backed him. The House Speaker opposes the effort, and the House Democratic leader supports it. This article sets out the eight articles as Massie's office wrote them, the responses from all sides, and the procedure that decides what happens next. The charges are allegations in a resolution, not findings by any court or committee, and they are presented here as such.

What happened on Monday

Massie introduced the resolution on the House floor on Monday afternoon, 9 November 2026, as lawmakers returned for the final weeks of the Republican-controlled Congress — the lame-duck session after the 3 November midterm elections. Under House rules, a privileged resolution must receive action within two legislative days. That puts the vote on the calendar by Wednesday. The resolution is 34 pages long and lists eight separate articles, each making a specific charge against the Secretary of Defense.

This is not the first time Massie has tried. He first introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth on 15 September 2026, but House Republican leaders called the chamber into recess early, and the measure never received consideration. By refiling the articles now, as a privileged resolution, Massie has restarted the clock and forced the House to deal with them. Massie is leaving Congress after losing his primary earlier this year, which gives this effort the character of a final act as much as a new one.

Massie summed up his case on the floor in a single sentence: "The question is whether he committed impeachable acts. And the answer is yes, eight times."

The eight articles, one by one

The articles fall into three groups: the war with Iran, the use of lethal force, and the remaining charges covering speech, Venezuela and Yemen. Here they are, as described by Massie's office and reported by NPR and other outlets.

Articles 1 to 3 — the Iran war. Three of the eight articles allege violations of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in the war with Iran. The first charges that Hegseth waged the war with no declaration of war, no statutory authorisation from Congress, no attack on the United States and no imminent threat. The second charges that he continued the war after both houses of Congress directed the removal of United States forces, in House Concurrent Resolution 86. The third charges that he continued hostilities past the War Powers Resolution's 60-day termination period, and its further 30-day withdrawal period — a span Massie's office puts at more than 90 days. Together, the three articles argue that the Iran war was waged and continued without the lawful authority Congress must give.

Article 4 — civilian casualties. The fourth article charges Hegseth with ignoring the laws designed to minimise civilian casualties. It cites a strike on an Iranian elementary school earlier this year that, according to the resolution, killed about 156 people. The article argues that the strike, and the failure to follow the laws that protect civilians, is itself an impeachable offence.

Article 5 — the boat strikes. The fifth article charges extrajudicial killings in the lethal strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean. According to the resolution, those strikes have left at least 243 people dead. Massie argues that killing the crews of suspected smuggling boats without trial or legal process amounts to unlawful killing, and that Hegseth, as Secretary of Defense, bears responsibility for the operation.

Article 6 — Senator Mark Kelly. The sixth article charges Hegseth with suppressing free speech, in connection with the Pentagon's scrutiny of Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. Kelly, a Democrat, had appeared in a video with other lawmakers telling service members that they can refuse illegal orders. The Pentagon then took steps against him, and the article argues that this was retaliation against a senator for protected speech.

Article 7 — Venezuela. The seventh article charges that Hegseth took part in the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — and his wife, Cilia Flores — without congressional authorisation. The operation that captured Maduro is one of the most controversial actions of the administration's foreign policy, and the article argues that it was carried out without the legal authority Congress must provide.

Article 8 — Yemen. The eighth article charges Hegseth with waging an unlawful war in Yemen: launching an operation there without Congress's approval and without filing the war-powers reports the law requires.

Taken together, the eight articles accuse Hegseth of waging war without authority in three countries, of killing civilians and suspected smugglers unlawfully, of punishing a senator for speaking out, and of seizing a foreign head of state without authority. The resolution ends with the formal language of impeachment: that Hegseth "has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office", that he "has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law", and that he "thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."

What Hegseth and the White House say

Hegseth has dismissed the effort. He called Massie's resolution a political stunt in a video posted on X last week, and on Monday he told reporters he is not worried. He said he will defend his record at a Pentagon press conference on Tuesday 10 November — his first briefing since May. President Trump has backed Hegseth, and the administration's position is that the military operations in question were lawful and necessary.

On the other side, the Democratic leadership supports the effort. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries is, in the words of one report, a "hard yes" on the articles. That does not guarantee the votes, because the House is narrowly divided: Republicans hold a 218–214 majority. Whether the articles pass, are tabled, or are referred to committee will depend on how many Republicans are willing to break with their leadership — and on whether the Democratic minority votes as a bloc.

Speaker Mike Johnson, the Republican who controls the floor, opposes the effort. His options under the rules are to bring the articles to a vote, to move to table them — which would kill them — or to refer them to a committee, which would delay them. Any of those actions, taken within the two legislative days, satisfies the privileged-resolution rule. The question is which one he chooses, and whether his own members go along with it.

How impeachment works

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one, and its rules are often misunderstood. The Constitution allows the House to impeach a federal official, including a Cabinet secretary, for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". The House acts as the prosecutor: a simple majority of the House is enough to impeach. If the House votes to impeach, the case goes to the Senate, which holds a trial. Removing the official from office requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

If the House were to impeach Hegseth, he would be only the third Cabinet secretary impeached in American history. Removal would still require two-thirds of the Senate — a high bar in a closely divided chamber. The more immediate question is what the House does by Wednesday: vote on the articles, table them, or send them to a committee. Each of those is a real decision, and each will be read as a verdict on the administration's war powers, whatever the formal outcome.

Why this matters beyond one vote

The articles are about Hegseth, but the argument behind them is about who gets to decide when America goes to war. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed over a presidential veto after Vietnam, requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing forces into hostilities, and to withdraw them within 60 days — plus a 30-day withdrawal period — unless Congress authorises the action. Presidents of both parties have argued that the resolution is unconstitutional or that particular operations fall outside it. Congress has rarely forced the issue to a vote.

Massie's resolution forces the issue. It asks the House to decide, in a recorded vote, whether the Iran war, the Yemen operation, the boat strikes and the Maduro seizure were lawful — and whether the Secretary of Defense should lose his job over them. Even if the articles are tabled, the vote itself will put every member on the record. That is why the filing matters more than the likely outcome: the vote, whatever form it takes, is the point.

What happens next is procedural and fast. By Wednesday, the House must act. Hegseth will hold his press conference on Tuesday. And the lame-duck Congress, in its final weeks, will have to decide whether to impeach a sitting Secretary of Defense in the middle of a war. This article will be updated when the House acts.

Frequently asked questions