Rep. Thomas Massie introduced a privileged impeachment resolution against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, accusing him of continuing U.S. military operations against Iran without congressional authorization months after the War Powers Resolution deadline expired.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., moved Tuesday to impeach Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over the continuing U.S. war with Iran, accusing him of carrying out military operations that Congress never authorized and forcing the House to address the resolution within two legislative days.
Massie read the impeachment measure on the House floor and designated it as privileged, a procedural step requiring House leaders to take action rather than simply allowing the proposal to remain dormant in committee. The Republican-controlled chamber could vote directly on impeachment or move to table the resolution.
“Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office,” Massie said while presenting his case.
The Kentucky Republican’s central argument is that Hegseth continued directing U.S. forces in hostilities against Iran without the congressional authorization required under the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
The U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran began Feb. 28. The Trump administration notified Congress about the hostilities shortly afterward but did not obtain a declaration of war or separate statutory authorization from lawmakers.
Under the War Powers Resolution, a president generally must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces in hostilities within 60 days after the required notification unless Congress has declared war, specifically authorized the military operation or extended the period. The law permits as many as 30 additional days when the president determines and certifies that an extension is necessary because of unavoidable military requirements related to safely removing U.S. forces.
Massie argues that the Iran conflict has continued well beyond both periods.
The administration disputes that interpretation.
As the initial 60-day deadline arrived May 1, President Donald Trump informed Congress that the hostilities that began in February had “terminated,” citing a ceasefire with Iran. Hegseth separately argued that the ceasefire had effectively paused the War Powers clock. Administration officials therefore maintained that Trump was not required to obtain new congressional authorization at that point.
Critics in Congress rejected that reasoning, arguing that U.S. forces remained engaged in operations involving Iran and that temporary reductions in fighting did not erase the original War Powers deadline.
Fighting subsequently intensified again, and the United States remains engaged in hostilities with Iran more than six months after the conflict began. Congress has not enacted a specific authorization for the war.
The War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon’s veto in an effort to reassert Congress’ constitutional role in decisions involving sustained military conflict. The statute states that its purpose is to ensure the “collective judgment” of Congress and the president applies both when U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities and while they remain involved.
It also says authority to put U.S. forces into hostilities cannot be inferred merely from appropriations or treaties unless Congress specifically states that legislation constitutes authorization under the War Powers Resolution.
Massie’s impeachment resolution accuses Hegseth of exceeding those limits by executing military orders after congressional authorization had not been obtained.
The Pentagon defended Hegseth following Massie’s announcement but did not directly answer the constitutional argument.
“The entire Department is unified behind the Secretary’s vision and will continue working to put our warfighters and America first,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in a statement to Reuters.
The impeachment effort is not expected to attract enough support to remove Hegseth, but Massie’s procedural maneuver means the House cannot simply ignore it.
Because the resolution is privileged, the chamber must consider it within two legislative days. Republican leaders could attempt to table it, which would effectively stop the impeachment effort without requiring lawmakers to vote directly on whether Hegseth committed an impeachable offense.
Massie’s action comes after Congress has repeatedly debated whether Trump has exceeded presidential war powers in Iran.
Lawmakers have introduced and considered resolutions directing the administration to end U.S. participation in hostilities unless Congress provides authorization. A House measure scheduled for consideration this month specifically invokes the War Powers Resolution and directs the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran.
The dispute has persisted because the Constitution divides military authority between the executive and legislative branches.
The president serves as commander in chief, but Congress holds the power to declare war, fund the military and enact laws governing the armed forces. Presidents of both parties have asserted broad authority to conduct limited military operations without advance congressional approval, while lawmakers have repeatedly disputed how far that authority extends.
Massie has long taken a restrictive view of presidential war powers regardless of which party controls the White House. He has repeatedly opposed overseas military interventions and has also criticized U.S. military assistance to Israel.
His willingness to break with Trump contributed to an increasingly hostile relationship with the president.
Massie lost Kentucky’s Republican primary in May to Ed Gallrein, a former Navy SEAL who received Trump’s endorsement. The race also drew substantial outside spending from groups opposed to Massie’s foreign-policy positions. Massie will leave Congress when his term expires.
The two Republicans had also clashed over Massie’s campaign to force disclosure of Justice Department records connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
His impending departure from Congress has not stopped Massie from continuing to challenge the administration on military policy.
Tuesday’s impeachment resolution also differs procedurally from an earlier effort by House Democrats.
In April, Democratic lawmakers introduced six articles of impeachment against Hegseth covering allegations including unauthorized war against Iran, handling of sensitive military information, obstruction of congressional oversight and politicization of the armed forces. Those articles did not remove Hegseth.
Massie’s proposal is more narrowly centered on war powers and Hegseth’s role in continuing the Iran operation without congressional authorization.
The dispute has gained additional significance as the scale and cost of the conflict have become clearer.
A Pentagon inspector general report released this month found that the war has consumed more than $22 billion in U.S. munitions and damaged or destroyed substantial amounts of American military infrastructure and aircraft. The watchdog also identified pressure on weapons inventories and defense-industry production capacity.
Those findings do not resolve the constitutional dispute over the war, but they underscore how far the operation has expanded beyond a short-duration strike.
For Massie, that distinction is central to the impeachment case: Whatever authority a president may possess to respond immediately to an emergency, he argues, months of sustained hostilities require Congress to act.
The administration maintains that its military operations have remained within presidential authority and has previously argued that interruptions in active fighting affected application of the War Powers timeline.
The House will now have to address that disagreement directly.
Massie may not have the votes to impeach Hegseth, but by introducing the articles as a privileged resolution, he has ensured lawmakers must take a procedural position on the secretary’s conduct and the continuing Iran war before the measure can be disposed of.
“Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office,” Massie said.
The Kentucky lawmaker lost his bid for reelection to a Trump-backed challenger earlier this year. He has long been a critic of foreign interventions and demonstrated a willingness to buck his party on the matter.
It is unlikely that Massie will secure a vote on the articles of impeachment.
Original article
Comments