Republican Lawmaker Introduces Eight Articles of Impeachment Against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday. Massie, a Kentucky Republican, accuses Hegseth of conduct that he says has shown Hegseth will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of US military operations, the integrity and credibility of the armed forces, and the Constitution if he stays in office.

The articles state that Hegseth has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law, and call for impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Hegseth said the administration is proud of the President's America First agenda and its peace-through-strength posture, adding that the world is a better and safer place as a result. He said he was happy to litigate the success of those policies all day long.

Hegseth also said he could not be more proud of what the president has done, the decisions he has made, and the skill and courage of the troops. He argued that anyone who takes issue with operations such as Epic Fury, Rough Rider, or the capture of Nicolas Maduro is taking issue with the troops and what they accomplished.

Asked whether he has enough Republican support to defeat the impeachment articles this week, Hegseth said he was not worried. He invited reporters to join him at a Pentagon press conference the next morning on that topic, saying he would save his remarks for it.

Ben Verhoolen then asked Akerman what he expected from the Tuesday press conference. Akerman said Hegseth would likely repeat what he had just said and frame the dispute as policy differences, which he argued it is not. In Akerman's view, the question is whether Hegseth followed the Constitution and the War Powers Act and whether he acted properly as Secretary of Defense.

Massie said he hoped Hegseth would address the eight articles rather than misquoting the Bible or attacking people, a remark in which he mocked Hegseth's expected presser. He said he would like to see Hegseth go through the articles and make his argument from a podium, using notes and lawyers if needed.

Massie challenged Hegseth to tell the public why he is not guilty of each of the eight articles.

Massie says the case extends beyond the war in Iran. He alleges that Hegseth is abusing the power of his office to ignore congressional war powers resolutions, to kidnap foreign leaders, and to intimidate critics of the Trump administration by retaliating against them for exercising free speech.

Asked about the allegations, Akerman said they should be viewed together. He argued that Hegseth ignores the War Powers Act while following illegal orders from Trump, and also gives illegal orders himself, including blowing up boats in the Caribbean. He said such boats would normally be stopped and investigated by the Coast Guard as a law enforcement matter, but there is no reason to believe the boats Hegseth ordered destroyed carried drugs, and there is some evidence to the contrary. Akerman also said Hegseth went after a senator from Arizona and other members of Congress who told military personnel not to follow illegal orders.

Akerman said the likelihood of removal depends on the Senate, since a two-thirds vote is still needed. He said he would imagine the House would impeach Hegseth, which would mean he is charged, and the charges would then go immediately to the Senate.

The key question, Akerman said, is whether Republican members of the Senate will join Democrats in voting for removal. He noted that Trump has put up primary challengers against several Republicans or they are leaving office after being defeated, which he said has put them on Trump's bad side.

Akerman's colleague in the conversation noted that the vote includes Republicans, who could choose to skip the session, because a two-thirds majority is measured among those present. Akerman agreed and said there is no telling what will happen once the matter reaches the Senate, adding that the Senate could simply dismiss it.

Akerman said he did not think the Senate would simply dismiss the matter, arguing that many senators feel Trump and Hegseth have gone well beyond acceptable bounds. He said the principle is that Congress declares war and the president manages it once Congress has declared it.

Akerman argued that Trump effectively declared war himself, did not follow the War Powers Act at various stages, and that there was no emergency or reason to suddenly attack Iran. He said many senators have problems with what Trump has done.

Asked whether Trump seems happy with Hegseth, Akerman said Trump likes him because he looks the part, which he said is the only way to explain it. Akerman said Hegseth has absolutely no background in this area.

Akerman said that during Hegseth's confirmation hearings, it emerged that he had run certain organizations into the ground and could not organize anyone. He said he believed this has been the pattern throughout Hegseth's tenure.

Massie has warned that his impeachment effort is a gentler version of what will come when Democrats take control of the House and Senate next year. Akerman said he did not think Democrats would waste much time on impeachment, which takes up a lot of time, unless they were sure they had a two-thirds vote.

Akerman said Democrats ran on affordability and corruption, and would likely pass bills to reinstate Medicaid healthcare subsidies that were removed by Trump's big bill. He said such bills would put the onus on Republicans to vote one way or the other, and on Trump to either veto or sign them, and he expected a number of bills to come out immediately after January 1.

Matthew Schmidt, an associate professor of national security and political science at the University of New Haven, was asked how he judges Hegseth's performance as military leader. He said it has been a disaster, and that he would set aside the wars themselves and their long-term effects to focus on what Hegseth has done to senior leadership.

Schmidt said Hegseth has eviscerated the kind of thoughtful, well-rounded generalship needed in war. He said Hegseth does not believe in Clausewitz's view that war is really about politics done a different way, and that he has systematically weakened the senior officer corps by getting rid of people who think that way.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, answering a reporter's question, said Hegseth has done a great job. He said he has worked with Hegseth every day on many of these topics and has seen the work he does and the professionalism he brings to it, calling him very smart, hardworking, and very good at the job.

Trump said Hegseth won two wars and that the soldiers, the great people who do the work, love him. He also called a critic named Mastriano a loser in the exchange.

Responding to the argument that Hegseth is effective and should therefore not be impeached, the speaker said the reality is that the articles do not charge him with being bad at his job. The speaker said Hegseth has been very effective at killing schoolchildren in Iran and at extrajudicial killings, and that there is no argument in the articles that he is ineffective. The core argument, the speaker said, is that he has broken laws and violated the Constitution.

The transcript does not clearly identify the speaker of this passage, and the subsequent exchange with Trump's defense is reported as the president saying he will stand by Hegseth.

Asked how military people view Hegseth, Schmidt said he used to teach senior officers at the Command and General Staff College. He said the attitude Hegseth presents toward the military profession, which involves life-and-death choices and killing, is disgusting to most of the senior officers he worked with, most of whom he guessed were Republicans.

Schmidt said a subset of soldiers, sailors, and Marines, mostly enlisted, cheer Hegseth on in a schoolyard way, but serious professionals who grow out of that tactical viewpoint are appalled by what he has done to the profession of arms. He argued that Hegseth's job is to think and lead at a strategic level, but that most of what he does behaves as if he were at a tactical level, which he called the whole problem.

Asked how Hegseth's views have affected the actual running of the military, including his cull of senior officers, Schmidt said it has done a lot of damage because it signals to good men and women that they must pull their punches and be very careful if they want to continue their careers when raising uncomfortable questions about the use of force.

Schmidt said that is why officers are given stars, to raise such questions, and that Hegseth has created an environment where they cannot do their job. He predicted that this will have an effect for a decade or more on who comes up through the ranks and on the senior leadership the country has, long after Hegseth is gone.

Asked whether Hegseth's decisions have led to the Iran war dragging on for so long, Schmidt answered absolutely. He said the inability to ask good questions going into the war, and then bring those questions to the commander in chief, led to the bad decision to fight it.

Schmidt compared the situation to Iraq and Afghanistan, arguing that whatever one thinks of those wars, the right questions were being asked at the highest levels, even if they were decided wrongly. He said those questions are not being asked now because Hegseth is not asking them and is not empowering senior officers to ask them, since they know they could be fired.

Schmidt argued that a fixation on lethality misses the point. He said militaries are designed to kill people and blow things up, but if they are not raising senior leaders who understand that difficult questions must be taken seriously, the result is lethality and violence for no purpose and no attempt at morality.

Schmidt said Hegseth is engendering exactly that inside the senior officer corps by not allowing questions of morality or legality to reach the surface, and said this will have an effect for years.

Asked where this is going, Schmidt said there is a decent chance Hegseth gets impeached, but that impeachment does not mean conviction. He said Massie's aim is political pressure that would lead Trump to remove Hegseth as defense secretary.

Schmidt noted that Massie is not seeking re-election and is finished after this term, and that a number of Republicans have also lost elections or are retiring. He said they may be turned off by Hegseth and likely to vote for impeachment, and that they are weighing whether a vote against him would mark them well or badly in the future Republican party.

Schmidt said there is enough anger, disappointment, and disgust at Hegseth on the Republican side that he could be impeached if enough members are willing to stand up and do it with some courage.