Thomas Massie is targeting Pete Hegseth with eight charges. The Republican representative of Kentucky resumed his proceedings in Washington, D.C., on Monday, 9 November. His initiative includes the war against Iran and the use of military powers. A vote is expected by Wednesday 11 November. It could, however, concern the procedural fate of the text, without impeachment or, more importantly, dismissal.
The Secretary of Defense posted his confidence on Monday and announced a press conference for Tuesday at the Pentagon. The confrontation occurred on the return of Congress after the mid-term elections. The outgoing elected representatives are still sitting: the results of 3 November do not immediately change the composition of the two chambers.
Massie targets Pete Hegseth with eight leaders
The text published on Monday by Massie’s office has 34 pages. He asked representatives to adopt eight articles against Peter Brian Hegseth, his full name. This wording sets out the decision requested by the Member. It does not mean that the House has already adopted it.
Three chiefs are directly involved in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which oversees American military engagement. Massie distinguishes the outbreak of the Iranian conflict, its continuation despite the intervention of Congress and the exceeding of legal deadlines. His argument refers to the secretary’s responsibility in carrying out operations, even when orders come from the president.
The first article contests the entry into war against Iran on 28 February 2026. Massie claims that it was not based on a declaration of war or specific legislative authorization. He also claims that no Iranian attack against the United States created the national emergency provided for in the 1973 text.
The second reproach Hegseth for maintaining hostilities after the adoption of the concurrent resolution H.Con.Res.86 by both chambers. In its text, Massie cites the votes of June 3 in the House and June 23 in the Senate. It considers that these decisions required the withdrawal of United States forces from unauthorized hostilities.
The third chief deals with the duration of the conflict. The law provides, subject to conditions, for the cessation of operations after 60 days without authorization from Congress. An additional period of 30 days may allow withdrawal when legal conditions are met. Massie accuses Hegseth of having continued the war beyond these limits.
The scope of the concurrent resolution, however, presents a constitutional challenge. This type of text is not presented to the President for signature. Since the stopINS v. Chadhaof 1983, legislative control mechanisms without this stage raise a legal challenge. The Congressional Research Service specifically addresses this problem for the withdrawal mechanism concerned. Massie’s argument must therefore remain presented as a charge, without turning it into a judicial decision.
Civilians, sea strikes, Venezuela and Yemen
The other five articles extend grievances to the conduct of operations and the use of Pentagon authority. The fourth accused Hegseth of ignoring obligations to limit civilian casualties. The fifth concerns strikes against vessels suspected of carrying drugs, which are described as extrajudicial executions by Massie.
This fifth article denounces the replacement of maritime police operations by lethal military attacks. He also mentioned strikes against survivors and the lack of relief to shipwrecked people. These facts and their qualification are included in the proposed indictment. The presentation of the text shall not constitute their validation by representatives.
The sixth leader concerns Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. Massie blames the secretary for using his powers to retaliate against the elected candidate, after his statements on illegal military orders. The MP described this as an infringement of freedom of expression and the separation of powers.
The seventh article concerns Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela and the capture of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores. Massie described it as an operation without constitutional or legal authority. The eighth concerns Operation Rough Rider in Yemen. He invokes the absence of parliamentary authorization and breaches of Congressional reporting obligations.
A recovery after the September initiative
Massie had already presented eight leaders on 15 September. The abolition of one day of parliamentary work before the elections had prevented a vote at that time. The deputy therefore resumed his approach at the beginning of Congress. Monday’s event is this effective revival, not the birth of all accusations.
The initiative comes from a member of the presidential party, who is also a member of the judicial commission. In his statement of 9 November, Massie asked Donald Trump to replace Hegseth. He presented this option as preferable to the investigations that the Democrats promised after their return to Congress.
Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries announced on Sunday his support for the indictment. Massie ensures he can rally Republicans. However, these positions do not constitute a definitive count of votes. The Republican leadership retains procedural means to try to rule out the resolution.
Hegseth prepares his response to the Pentagon
Asked Monday about his Republican supporters, Hegseth replied that he was not worried, according to a news agency. He said he was ready to defend his balance sheet. He also announced a press conference on Tuesday, November 10, at the Pentagon, on this parliamentary challenge.
Donald Trump has so far defended his secretary and indicated that he wants to maintain him. Hegseth had already denounced a political initiative in a video published the previous week. His response announced on Tuesday should clarify his defence against the various grievances.
What the expected vote can decide
Massie uses a privileged procedure, which requires the House to consider the matter within two legislative days. This deadline explains the Wednesday deadline referred to for the vote. A legislative day corresponds to a parliamentary sitting, not necessarily a 24-hour period.
Representatives may vote directly on the articles. They may also adopt a motion to dismiss the text or refer it to the Judicial Commission. A referral vote would not be an indictment. A ranking vote would prevent this attempt to move forward in this form.
If a simple majority adopted impeachment articles, the Chamber would charge Hegset. The case would then pass to the Senate, which is responsible for judging him. A conviction would require two thirds of the senators present. With a hundred senators present, this threshold would be 67 votes. It is this conviction that would lead to his dismissal.
At this point, Hegseth remains in office. The next steps identified are his press conference on Tuesday, and then the handling of the resolution in the House. The exact wording of the ballot will determine whether the elected representatives decide on the charges or whether they are dismissed.
Comments