War Powers Resolution, boat strikes: What’s the focus and likelihood of Hegseth impeachment?
PolitiFact ·
Even before Democrats take the majority in the House and Senate in January, the House is poised to vote on impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who introduced impeachment articles in September, has reintroduced them under a process that requires a vote within two days. House members are expected to vote on Hegseth’s impeachment by Nov. 11, unless Republicans kill the resolution via a motion.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. — the presumptive Speaker of the House starting in January — said Nov. 9 he is a “hard yes” on impeaching Hegseth. Several other Democratic lawmakers have also said they will support the effort.
The Democrats’ midterm sweep was driven in part by the public’s concerns about the war, and Hegseth is a target because of his leading role. Democrats also suspect it may be more practical to impeach Hegseth than President Donald Trump.
“ The two failed Trump impeachments have forced Democrats to focus on Hegseth because the obstacles to a presidential impeachment seem out of reach,” said Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington, D.C., attorney who serves as distinguished fellow at Penn State Dickinson Law.
To reach a simple majority needed for the House to pass the impeachment resolution, three Republicans would have to join all Democrats in favor. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told Fox News that Hegseth doesn’t have a “lot of love” on the Hill, but Bacon is undecided on the vote.
Trump has defended Hegseth. “I believe we saved the Middle East and Israel combined. And it’s awfully hard to say, ‘Let’s impeach somebody who did that,’” Trump said Nov. 8.
The following day, Hegseth said , “These are the kind of partisan political games Democrats have been playing for a very long time against the president.”
The House has impeached only two Cabinet secretaries : Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024.
Massie’s impeachment resolution includes eight articles.
War Powers Resolution violations . Three articles refer to alleged violations of the War Powers Resolution. The resolution says Hegseth launched a war against Iran despite Congress neither declaring war nor enacting an authorization for use of force. The resolution also said “no imminent attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces existed.”
The War Powers Resolution , which Congress passed in 1973, requires that in the absence of a declaration of war, the president must end the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress allows otherwise.
Insufficient attention to minimizing civilian casualties . One article cites an attack at the war’s outset in which an elementary school in Minab, Iran, was hit, killing more than 200 civilians. The resolution says this stemmed from Hegseth’s “systemic deterioration and removal of Department of Defense infrastructure that Congress had mandated by law to limit collateral damage to civilians and non-military objects during military operations.” It cites Hegseth’s stated aversion to “stupid rules of engagement” with preference for “maximum lethality, not tepid legality.”
Caribbean boat strikes . One article cites the “extrajudicial killings” of at least 221 people on boats the Trump administration alleged without evidence were smuggling narcotics . It says Hegseth “chilled independent legal review within the Department of Defense” and ignored longstanding precedent. The article says Hegseth oversaw orders “denying quarter and failing to provide rescue, including secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors,” which amounted to claiming “the roles of judge, jury, and executioner.”
Intimidation of Sen. Mark Kelly for public comments . One article cites Hegseth’s retaliation after Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, made a video with other Democratic lawmakers who have military or intelligence experience, in which they told U.S. military members they are not obliged to carry out illegal orders. The Pentagon threatened Kelly with “court-martial proceedings or administrative measures” and Hegseth issued a secretarial letter of censure against him. Legal experts did not find that video seditious .
Capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro . One article of the impeachment resolution describes Maduro’s seizure — described as a way to bring him to justice in the U.S. for drug-trafficking charges — as “an act of war against a sovereign country” that, despite its framing as a law enforcement action, was “intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil reserves.”
Military action in Yemen . One article focuses on U.S. military actions in Yemen that led to “the deaths of an estimated 224 civilians, as well as approximately 500 to 600 Houthi fighters.” The article says the actions included more than 1,100 strikes over more than 50 days. The article says none of the War Powers Resolution triggers for such action were present, nor was an imminent threat to the U.S.
Impeachment — both the House’s referral vote and a subsequent Senate trial — does not adhere to strict rules of criminal or civil law.
Despite the use of such terms as “trial” and “high crimes and misdemeanors,” impeachment is a quasi-judicial process without specific rules of evidence. The two chambers “may receive hearsay and other material that might be excluded from a criminal trial,” said Steven Smith, an Arizona State University political scientist.
As the person facing impeachment, Hegseth also has fewer guaranteed rights than a criminal defendant, experts said. His arguments will likely include his role carrying out someone else’s policies — the president’s — and the idea that policy disagreements should not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, Smith said.
Because courts have declined to rule decisively on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, those articles could face an uphill battle in impeachment, experts said.
Conversely, the articles regarding the Caribbean boat strikes and retaliation against Kelly could be “constitutionally very strong,” said Frank O. Bowman III, University of Missouri emeritus law professor.
“The boat strikes violate domestic, military, and international law, and the efforts to muzzle former military members of Congress violate both the First Amendment” and the constitutional principle of “speech and debate” that protects the freedom of speech for lawmakers, Bowman said.
In an impeachment, however, politics can be more important than constitutional grounding, experts said.
When the Maduro capture happened early this year, “I was surprised that there was no public or legislative uproar,” said David Luban, a Georgetown University law professor. “So I would guess that count isn’t going anywhere. …Congress probably does not want to take extraordinary rendition off the table, even though it clearly violates international law.”