War Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed back against an impeachment effort Tuesday, accusing lawmakers of trying to turn disagreements over President Donald Trump’s military policies into impeachable offenses.
Congress is preparing to vote on eight articles alleging the Pentagon chief violated federal law and abused his authority.
“One disgruntled congressman wants to shred it over policy disagreements. That’s what it is: policy disagreements, not high crimes, not misdemeanors, not treason, not bribery, not the kinds of offenses the founders intended when they wrote the impeachment clause,” Hegseth said at a Pentagon press conference Tuesday morning.
“The proper remedy for a policy disagreement, it’s legislation, it’s debate, it’s the next presidential election,” he added.
But the impeachment resolution introduced Monday by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., goes beyond objections to the administration’s military strategy. It alleges that Hegseth violated congressional war powers, authorized unlawful military operations and retaliated against a sitting senator for exercising his constitutional rights.
HEGSETH RIPS IMPEACHMENT PUSH FROM OUTGOING REPUBLICAN AS ‘FARCE,’ ‘STUNT’
The clash puts the limits of impeachment at the center of a growing fight over Trump’s national security agenda, testing whether lawmakers can make a constitutional case for removing Hegseth or are just using impeachment to challenge military and policy decisions they oppose.
Massie’s eight articles center on several of the Trump administration’s most controversial national security decisions, with three accusing Hegseth of violating the War Powers Resolution during the war against Iran.
The outgoing Kentucky Republican alleges that Hegseth initiated hostilities without congressional authorization, continued military operations after Congress directed their termination and disregarded statutory deadlines requiring the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Other articles accuse Hegseth of failing to comply with laws intended to minimize civilian casualties, including in connection with a strike on an Iranian school, and conducting unlawful maritime strikes against suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean.
7 REPUBLICANS REBEL AGAINST TRUMP, VOTE WITH DEMS TO REIN IN IRAN WAR POWERS
The resolution also alleges that Hegseth retaliated against Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., over a video urging service members to refuse unlawful orders, and unlawfully directed military operations in Yemen and the capture of former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
Massie has rejected the suggestion that the impeachment effort is simply a referendum on Hegseth’s job performance or the administration’s military policies.
“The question is whether he committed impeachable acts,” Massie wrote on X Monday. “And the answer is yes, eight times.”
Constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley largely agreed that the impeachment effort was on shaky ground, arguing that six of Massie’s eight articles should be dismissed outright.
“In my view, six of the eight articles should be nonstarters, including the Iranian articles,” Turley wrote on X Tuesday.
Turley acknowledged that Congress has a legitimate constitutional interest in asserting its war powers, but argued that Massie was attempting to use impeachment to settle a longstanding dispute over presidential authority. Presidents of both parties, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have claimed broad authority to launch military operations without congressional approval, he noted.
“Massie is not going to ‘litigate’ the matter through impeachments,” Turley wrote, arguing that Trump was exercising authority long claimed by his predecessors.
GOP REP THOMAS MASSIE INTRODUCES 8 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WAR SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH
Vice President JD Vance, however, argued Tuesday that lawmakers were using impeachment as a substitute for exercising their legislative powers.
“Has Pete Hegseth committed impeachable crimes? The question is absurd and the answer is: obviously not,” Vance wrote on X.
“Congress has so many tools for registering its policy disagreements. Rather than use them, they’re going to try to impeach Pete Hegseth,” he continued.
Vance suggested the effort was driven less by the war with Iran than by opposition to Hegseth’s broader changes at the Pentagon, including shifting U.S. forces away from Europe and Ukraine and reorganizing the military’s senior leadership.
TRUMP’S PENTAGON SHAKE-UP REVIVES A PRESIDENTIAL POWER PLAY WITH A LONG HISTORY
“This isn’t about Iran, this is about the fact that Pete took on the bureaucracy at the Pentagon,” Vance wrote.
DRAMATIC FOOTAGE SHOWS ALLEGED NARCO BOAT ERUPT IN FIREBALL DURING US MILITARY STRIKE
Turley dismissed the article of impeachment concerning Maduro’s capture, pointing to court precedent involving the U.S. seizure of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.
But Turley drew a distinction between those disputes over executive authority and two allegations he considered more serious: the maritime strikes against suspected drug traffickers and Hegseth’s treatment of Sen. Mark Kelly.
“The ‘double tap’ allegation would be a war crime, if true,” Turley wrote, noting that Trump and Hegseth have denied issuing such orders.
The effort to punish Kelly over a video urging troops to refuse unlawful orders also raised serious questions about a sitting senator’s free speech rights and potential undue command influence, Turley argued.
Still, he stopped short of concluding that either allegation met the constitutional threshold for impeachment, saying more evidence was needed.
DEMOCRATS RALLY BEHIND GOP LAWMAKER’S HEGSETH IMPEACHMENT PUSH, SIGNAL MORE TO COME IN JANUARY
“I will be looking for the underlying evidence on those two articles,” he wrote, describing both as potentially problematic but difficult to establish as “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The Constitution authorizes impeachment for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, a standard that does not require proof of a criminal offense. Congress has historically treated serious abuses of official power as potential grounds for impeachment, though the precise boundaries remain contested.
That distinction complicates the argument that the allegations can be dismissed simply because they involve military policy. Lawmakers can disagree with a defense secretary’s decisions without those disagreements constituting impeachable misconduct, but allegations that an official knowingly violated the law or abused the powers of his office present a different constitutional question.
Hegseth, meanwhile, has maintained that the operations cited in the resolution were lawful and directed by the president.
“I stand behind every one of these operations. I was proud to execute them, and I would do it again tomorrow,” Hegseth said Tuesday.
President Trump also rallied behind his defense secretary following the press conference, praising his performance and attacking Massie, who lost his Republican primary earlier this year.
“In just under two years, Secretary Hegseth has worked side-by-side with President Trump to restore American power on the world stage, build the strongest military in generations, and instill a warrior ethos at the Pentagon. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have taken bold, necessary action to deny the Iranian regime the ability to develop a nuclear weapon, bring narco-terrorist Nicolás Maduro to American justice, and defend our homeland from dangerous terrorists and cartels – saving American lives,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital.
“This spectacle only proves what we’ve known all along: Thomas Massie and the Democrats are far more interested in playing political games than working to improve the lives of the American people,” Wales added.
Trump Cabinet officials rallied behind Hegseth, with Collins, Burgum, Rollins, Mullin and Turner posting messages of support on social media. Rubio and Blanche also defended Hegseth publicly.
Rubio said he carried out Trump’s orders “quite effectively” and Blanche rejected claims that he had done anything illegal or wrong.
The House is expected to vote Tuesday evening on whether to advance Massie’s impeachment resolution. Impeachment would require a simple majority in the House, but removing Hegseth from office would require conviction by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
The vote will test whether lawmakers view the allegations as grounds for impeachment or a dispute better addressed through Congress’s legislative and oversight powers.
