Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faces eight articles of impeachment introduced by Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky. They accuse him of violating federal law and the Constitution through military operations against Iran, Venezuela and Yemen, the killing of civilians and retaliation against a sitting U.S. senator.
Three of the charges center on the war with Iran, which Mr. Massie argues was unlawful from the start. The remaining articles focus on decisions Mr. Hegseth has made in overseeing the Pentagon, including his rollback of civilian-casualty protections and military strikes against suspected drug traffickers in the Pacific and Caribbean.
“We’re not indicting him for being bad at his jobs,” Mr. Massie said during a news conference on Capitol Hill on Monday after he read his resolution on the House floor. “In fact, he was very effective at killing schoolchildren in Iran. The argument here is that he has broken laws and he’s violated the Constitution.”
Mr. Hegseth held a news conference on Tuesday morning in which he cast the articles as a slanderous effort by a “disgruntled and defeated congressman,” and the Pentagon has said that he “will not back down or be deterred.”
President Trump defended Mr. Hegseth on Sunday, saying, “He’s guilty of two things, basically winning two wars.”
Here is a closer look at the charges, with excerpts from each.
Article I: Starting the war with Iran without congressional authorization
Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation notwithstanding the absence of congressional authorization, an attack upon the United States giving rise to the national emergency contemplated by law, or an imminent threat requiring immediate defensive action, thereby substituting unlawful Executive action for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress.
The first charge invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was enacted over a veto and limits the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad without consent from Congress.
It asserts that the war, which began on Feb. 28 when American forces launched joint strikes with Israel against Iran, was illegal from the beginning because it did not satisfy any of the conditions laid out in the statute for authorizing a conflict. Those include a declaration of war, congressional approval for the use of military force or an attack on the United States.
The resolution refers to the March 17 resignation of Joe Kent, who at the time served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center and said Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States.
The administration has maintained that the president has the constitutional authority under his powers as commander in chief to conduct the military campaign without any action by Congress.
Article II: Defying Congress’s vote to end the Iran War
Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders, and continues to do so, in contravention of Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1544(c) of title 50, United States Code.
The House voted on June 3 to direct the withdrawal of American forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. On June 23, the Senate approved the same measure, a concurrent resolution that on its own did not have the force of law but was a clear statement of congressional opposition to continuing the conflict.
Mr. Massie argues that the votes satisfied a provision in the War Powers Resolution that requires the withdrawal of American troops if Congress passes a concurrent resolution directing it. By ignoring the measure, Mr. Massie says, Mr. Hegseth acted “in contravention” of the war powers law.
“The law is on the book,” he said on Monday. “Pete Hegseth is obligated to follow the laws on the books, not the laws that he wants to follow.”
There is legal uncertainty about such a charge. A 1983 Supreme Court ruling, I.N.S. v. Chadha, casts doubt on congressional mechanisms that attempt to bind the executive branch without presenting legislation to the president for his signature, which concurrent resolutions do not require.
Article III: Continuing the Iran war beyond a legal deadline
Directing the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory termination requirement as discretionary.
The third article centers on a 60-day deadline in the war powers law that determines when military action that was not authorized by Congress must end. The statute allows an additional 30 days under limited circumstances if needed to facilitate the safe withdrawal of American forces. Mr. Trump and his administration ignored both deadlines, arguing that they were not bound by the law.
The president and his advisers have at various points claimed that the war was over, including in May, around the 60-day mark, when they declared Operation Epic Fury, the original mission, “concluded” amid a cease-fire, and then classified subsequent attacks as a separate military operation.
“The war was never over,” Mr. Massie said. “There was never a legitimate stop to the war.”
Article IV: Sidestepping laws to prevent civilian deaths
By directing the Department of Defense in a manner that foreseeably dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, Secretary Hegseth thereby effected the murder of civilians and abused the trust of the men and women under his command by requiring them to conduct military operations within a targeting and legal-review system that he had deliberately degraded.
The article charges Mr. Hegseth with disregarding congressionally mandated safeguards against civilian deaths and casualties, including by gutting funding for the Army database that tracks them, eliminating a majority of the staff overseeing civilian harm mitigation and firing military lawyers across several branches.
It seeks to tie those moves to the bombing of the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, Iran, on the opening day of the war, which Iranian officials have said killed at least 175 people, most of them children.
The resolution quotes Mr. Hegseth’s remarks during a news conference he held days after the war began when he said there would be no “stupid rules of engagement” in the conflict.
It also refers to a statement by the secretary last year boasting of a force focused on “maximum lethality, not tepid legality.”
Article V: Conducting extrajudicial drug boat killings
Secretary Hegseth arrogated to himself and the Executive Branch the roles of judge, jury, and executioner and asserted a unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die.
This article challenges the administration’s strikes against boats suspected of trafficking narcotics in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, which began in September 2025. It accuses Mr. Hegseth of positioning himself as an “executioner” who directed the extrajudicial killings of at least 221 people over the course of more than 60 strikes.
The article singles out a Sept. 2 attack in which American forces launched a so-called “double tap” strike that killed two survivors clinging to wreckage from an initial strike, calling it “contrary to United States law and customary international law.”
The administration has defended the operations as necessary to fight dangerous trafficking organizations, but the resolution declares that the campaign exceeded the Pentagon’s legal authority and endangered American service members by encouraging adversaries to disregard protections for survivors.
Article VI: Targeting Senator Mark Kelly
Using the powers of his office, Secretary Hegseth retaliated against and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his statement through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere with Congress’ constitutional authority to oversee the Executive Branch.
The sixth charge concerns Mr. Hegseth’s response to a November 2025 video in which Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and a group of other Democratic lawmakers informed troops that they could refuse illegal orders.
After Mr. Trump accused Mr. Kelly, a retired Navy captain, of sedition and called for him to be hanged for the remarks, Mr. Hegseth echoed the rebukes, censured the senator and initiated a disciplinary procedure that could result in the reduction of his military rank and pension.
Mr. Kelly sued Mr. Hegseth, accusing the defense secretary of violating his free speech rights, and a federal judge agreed and blocked the punishment, though the Justice Department has appealed the ruling.
The resolution calls the actions against Mr. Kelly retaliation against protected speech and a public campaign to intimidate a sitting member of Congress.
Article VII: Kidnapping a foreign leader
An act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement
This article addresses the Jan. 3 military operation that captured President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The operation involved more than 150 aircraft and drones and hundreds of American military personnel. The Trump administration has repeatedly said that the mission was a law enforcement operation tied to federal indictments, but the impeachment charge calls it an unauthorized “act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement.”
Article VIII: Starting an unauthorized war in Yemen
Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed Operation Rough Rider without Congressional authority
The final article challenges the administration’s military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, carried out in the spring of 2025, saying that it, too, was an unauthorized operation launched without congressional approval or an imminent threat to the United States.
The campaign was intended to stop attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea. It became associated with an early scandal for Mr. Hegseth, in which he and other senior administration officials discussed the planned military strikes in a group chat that inadvertently included a journalist.
