Representative Thomas Massie Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Pete Hegseth

By News on SantoshHub Nov 10, 2026 0

Pete Hegseth is going down. It will be glorious to watch.

Thomas Massie’s eight articles of impeachment against the self-styled Secretary of War might have been short on soaring rhetoric, but they more than compensated for that in their damming detail. I urge you to listen to Massie’s bill of particulars or read the transcript below.

If Hegseth were a movie creation, his loud-mouthed arrogance and male pompadour would have been deemed over the top. But with the likes of Scott Bessent, overly-Botoxed Kristi Noem, and Pam Bondi, Trump has demonstrated an appetite for personalities that verge on caricature.

An outline of Massie’s charges from NPR:

The allegations include:

3 charges for illegally waging war against Iran in violation of the War Powers Resolution

1 charge for ignoring laws designed to minimize civilian casualties

1 charge for overseeing “extrajudicial killings” in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean with strikes on alleged drug boats

1 charge for suppressing free speech, brought in connection to the effort to punish Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., for a video telling service members they can refuse illegal orders

1 charge for the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro without congressional authorization

1 charge for illegally waging war against Yemen in violation of the War Powers Resolution

Procedurally, a vote must come by Wednesday. House Speaker Johnson must determine whether to vote the eight articles of impeachment all together or to consider them separately. It takes only a majority of those present and voting to approve an impeachment and send it to the Senate for trail. Note that Speaker Johnson could refuse to do that, kicking the matter over to the next Senate. That would seem to assure a Hegseth ouster. Not only will there be at least 54 votes for removal, but a Democrat-controlled Senate is very likely to be painfully thorough in its trial. Congress is full of lawyers, some of them former prosecutors. Hegseth’s habitual bluster, bullying and stonewalling in response to careful, persistent questioning is sure to alienate fence-sitting Senators.

After the epic Republican midterm wipeout, CNN and other outlets reported that Massie had the votes to secure passage. Massie’s statements about the prospects for success are cautious. However, Hegseth’s extremely uncooperative appearances before Congress means he has enemies. Similarly, departing Republicans might find it in their career interest to signal late-in-the-game opposition the war in Iran, as JD Vance has. One wonders if some Republicans will abstain. But Trump says he is still standing by his man.

Even if Massie’s articles fail to pass, the incoming Congress can take them up again.

Hegseth may technically survive impeachment actions, but he will be deeply discredited in real time and historically even more so, not that history would otherwise be kind to him.

Hegseth has promised to make a statement tomorrow. It seems unlikely to help his cause with those not already committed to him.

Massie: “I hope Hegseth addresses the 8 articles of impeachment, and doesn‘t get up and misquote the Bible in Quentin Tarantino fashion and do some pull-ups and call everybody fat and gay. I may have just given you half his speech, I don’t know.” https://t.co/W5EumfVJ5J

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 9, 2026

Thanks to Daniel Davis for putting up Massie’s speech in full. Even though it is also on C-SPAN, Davis is doing his part to get it to a wider audience.

A machine-generated transcript:

The form of the resolution is as follows.

Impeaching Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense for high crimes and misdemeanors. resolved that Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, also referred to as Secretary of War by the administration, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Peter Brian Hegseth Secretary of Defense in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article one, waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 2C. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

In his conduct while Secretary of Defense Peter Brian Hegseth in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that the declare war clause of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war.

While the military administrative and clemency clause of the United States Constitution, article 2, section 2, clause one, establishes the president as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress. In an effort to statutorially delineate the circumstances under which the president may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93148 by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.

Peter Brian Hegseth in his capacity as Secretary of Defense has ex executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2C of the war powers resolution of 1973 section 1541C of Title 50 United States Code. Section 2C provides that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief to introduce United States armed forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances are exercised only pursuant to one a declaration of war, two, specific statutory authorization, or three, a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The War Powers Resolution further expressly provides that nothing contained therein shall be construed as granting any authority to the president or to introduce United States armed forces into hostilities which the president would not otherwise possess in the absence of the resolution.

Accordingly, the reporting and termination procedures subsequently established by the resolution do not themselves constitute affirmative statutory authorization to commence hostilities. Rather, the introduction of United States armed forces into hostilities must rest upon one of the authorities or circumstances identified in Section 2C in order for a conflict to be considered lawful.

With respect to the United States armed forces being introduced into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28th, 2026, Secretary Hegseth directed and caused United States armed forces to be introduced into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Notwithstanding that, Congress had not declared war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Congress had not enacted any specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States armed forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran. And no national emergency had been created by an attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Furthermore, no imminent attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces existed, as affirmed in the March 17th, 2026 resignation letter of Joe Kent, then director of the National Counter and Terrorism Center, in which he stated, quote, “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.” unquote.

The introduction of United States armed forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran therefore satisfied none of the circumstances expressly identified in Section 2C of the War Powers Resolution and was undertaken from its inception without congressional authorization or independent Article 2 authority, thereby rendering both the initial introduction of the United States armed forces into hostilities and all subsequent actions taken thereafter unlawful.

Secretary Hegseth nevertheless knowingly executed and implemented the order to commence such hostilities, employing the powers, personnel, weapons, and resources of the Department of Defense to initiate military action against another sovereign nation in violation of Section 1541C of Title 50, United States Code.

Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means: executing an unlawful order to commence hostilities despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, and continuing to employ the personnel and resources of the Department of Defense in those hostilities after their unlawful initiation and in the continued absence of any subsequent declaration of war or specific statutory authorization by Congress.

Through these actions, 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.

In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law.

Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article 2, waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 5C. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that the declaration of war of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war.

While the military administrative and clemency clause of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause one, establishes the president as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress in an effort to statutorially delineate the circumstances under which the president may introduce United States armed forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization.

The 93rd Congress of the United States of America enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. Secretary Hegsth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so in contravention of section 5C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1544 C of title 50, United States Code, section 5C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that at any time that United States armed forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization. Such forces shall be removed by the president if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

With respect to the United States armed forces being engaged in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran pursuant to section 5C, the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed by the yays and nays to a concurrent resolution directing the president to remove United States armed forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. House concurrent resolution 86 of the 119th Congress.

The House agreed to this concurrent resolution on June 3rd, 2026, and the Senate agreed to it on June 23rd, 2026, marking the first successful passage of such a legislative vehicle by both chambers of Congress in the history of the United States of America. In response and without lawful cause or excuse, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct United States armed forces into hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran. on June 26, 2026, and continues to do so in violation of section 1544 C of Title 50, United States Code.

Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his office through the following means: directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after both chambers of Congress agreed to House Concurrent Resolution 86, thereby disregarding Congress’s express and lawful direction that the United States armed forces be removed from such hostilities, and failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to withdraw United States armed forces from hostilities in Iran and directing the Department of Defense to ignore duly agreed concurrent resolution, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying Congress’s exercise of its war powers.

Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that treated the executive branch as possessing authority to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, and whether Congress’ direction to terminate hostilities must be obeyed.

By implementing those orders, he effectuated in practice the unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran despite Congress’s exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and despite Congress’s formal action directing the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities. This abuse of office frustrated Congress’s ability to exercise its most solemn constitutional responsibility, enabled the continuation of an unlawful war, and ignored and thus nullified the fundamental safeguard designed to prevent United States armed forces from being used at the will of the executive alone.

Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article three, waging war in contravention of the war powers resolution of 1973 section 5B.

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that the declare war clause of the United States Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the Military Administrative and Clemency Clause of the United States Constitution. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, establishes the president as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress.

In an effort to statutorially delineate the circumstances under which the president may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so in contribution contravention of section 5B of the war powers resolution of 1973.

Section 1544b of title 50 United States Code. Section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted or required to be submitted to Congress by the President of the United States upon the executive introducing United States armed forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances whichever is earlier.

The executive shall terminate any use of United States armed forces unless Congress has declared war or enacted a specific authorization for such use of the United States armed forces, has extended by law such 60-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 5B further provides that absent a formal congressional declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the use of military force or an extension of the 60-day period enacted into law during that period.

Such 60-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional 30 days if the president determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the United States armed forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

With respect to the United States armed forces being entered into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and indicating reliance on and felt to the War Powers Rresolution of 1973 as legal justification for entering United States armed forces into hostilities with Iran without the initiatory authority of Congress. President Donald J. Trump transmitted on March 2nd, 2026 a letter informing Congress of action taken consistent with the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, pursuant to 50, US Code 1543 A3, Public Law 93148, Section 4A 87, Statute 555 and 50, US Code 1543B, Public Law 93-148, section 4B 87 statute statute 555 concerning hostilities that had commenced in Iran on February 28th, 2026.

In the 60-day period following said transmission, Congress did not enact and still has not enacted any declaration or specific statutory authorization for the use of United States armed forces in hostilities against Iran or extend the applicable 60-day period by law despite remaining physically capable of meeting and carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.

Moreover, President Donald J. Trump did not submit the written certification required to invoke the additional 30-day withdrawal period by May 1st, 2026, even assuming the president had validly invoked that separate and limited 30-day extension.

It would have likewise expired on June 1st, 2026 without lawful cause or excuse and despite the executive’s initial observance of the report reporting requirements under Section 4A of the War Powers Resolution Section 1543A3 of Title 50 United States Code through the president’s transmission to Congress of a letter acknowledging the commencement of the statutory timeline.

Secretary Hegseth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of United States armed forces in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran after the expiration of every potential applicable statutory period. Secretary Hegsth continued such hostilities after the 60-day period on May 1st, 2026 and after June 1st, 2026, the date on which even the maximum possible additional 30-day withdrawal period would have expired despite the absence of a declaration of war specific statutory authorization or extension enacted by Congress.

Secretary Hegseth further contravened the limited p purpose of any such additional 30-day withdrawal period by directing United States armed forces to continue engaging in hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner calculated not to terminate the unauthorized use of such forces and bring about their prompt removal, but rather to continue prosecuting the war to pursue additional military objectives not authorized by Congress and has therefore directed the Department of Defense in violation of Section 1544B of Title 50 United States Code.

Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means: directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after the expiration of the 60-day period established under section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an extension enacted by Congress, continued continuing to direct and sustain hostilities in Iran in the pursuit of additional military objectives during and after the expiration of any potentially applicable additional 30-day period.

Notwithstanding that such 30-day period could be used only when required by unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the United States armed forces in the course of bringing about their prompt removal as certified as necessary by the President of the United States. A certification never transmitted to Congress by President Donald J. Trump pursuant to Section 1544B of Title 50, United States Code, and failing to refuse to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to terminate the unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces and promptly withdraw such forces from hostilities in the Islamic Republic in Iran of Iran and directing the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory termination requirement as discretionary, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying the express command that the unauthorized use of United States armed forces shall be terminated.

Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that in practice displaced the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress by permitting the executive branch to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, and whether statutory deadlines governing unauthorized hostilities must be obeyed, and whether a war may continue after the expiration of every period permitted by law. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. in his conduct as Secretary of Defense and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Secretary of Defense and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hgsathth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that using the powers of his office.

Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the death or injury of more than 200 civilians at the Shajare Tayab Elementary School in Manab Hermas Province, Iran. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that affected the systematic 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 oper operations.

While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also cultivated a war- makingaking culture at the Department of Defense, which he boasts as being dismissive of quote stupid rules of engagement unquote, with preference for quote “maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” unquote. Such combination chilled and rendered ineffective components of the Department of Defense responsible for preventing, mitigating, and responding to civilian harm.

By directing the Department of Defense in a manner that foreseeably dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, Secretary Hegs thereby affectuated 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. This undermined the integrity and diplomacy of the United States and its armed forces. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation.

Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. Secretary Hegseth willfully disregarded and acted to defeat the requirements of section 184 of Title 10, United States Code by systematically dismantling civilian protection infrastructure.

in that Secretary Hegseth submitted a legislative po proposal to Congress on May 29th, 2025, requesting a repeal of Section 184 of Title 10, United States Code, the statutory requirement for civilian protection systems at the Department of Defense, even as Congress had fully funded such systems for fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026.

And after Congress did not enact the requested repeal, Army officials nevertheless confirmed that such civilian harm mitigation activities had been halted. Secretary Hegsth intentionally stalled and reversed implementation of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, CHMRAP, and rendered ineffective the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence Excellence, CPC COE, despite it being congressionally mandated by section 1082 of the James M. Inhof National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 117263 and section 936 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 115232.

Secretary Hegseth eliminated funding for the Army’s casualty tracking database, the institutional system for recording and verifying civilian harm reports. So that should civilians be harmed as a result of the United States military action, there would be no functioning system within the Department of Defense to review, verify, and report on such harm.

Secretary Hegseth willfully refused to ensure that DoD components re received adequate resources to satisfy CHMR requirements, including by removing more than 90% of civilian harm mitigation and response staff assigned to combatant commands. Secretary Hegseth failed by the end of fiscal year 2025 to satisfy any of the 11 objectives or complete 133 actions mandated by Congress for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm during armed conflict, thereby rendering every such component of the Department of Defense’s civilian harm prevention apparatus partially or totally ineffective by the time the United States military combat operations against Iran began.

And in early 2026, Secretary Hegseth removed without reason or cause the seniormost judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, thereby undermining independent legal oversight of combat operations and legal advice to commanders on the law of armed conflict.

Secretary Hegseth promulgated the 2026 NA National Defense Strategy with all references to civilian protection omitted, marking a deliberate and unprecedented departure from prior defense policy that had recognized in accordance with law civilian harm mitigation as a strategic priority.

Secretary Hegseth from the outset of his tenure instigated a department culture hostile to the law of armed conflict and the protection of civilians through his public and repeated denigration of rules of engagement as quote stupid, politically incorrect and overbearing in that on September 30th, 2025, while addressing the largest assembled gathering of United States generals and admirals in American history, Secretary Hegseth boasted that we, the United States military, quote, “don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement,” unquote.

Upon lawfully renaming, upon unlawfully renaming the Department of Defense, the Department of War on September 5th, 2025, he poetically proclaimed, “Maxim lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not politically correct,” unquote. During his confirmation hearing on January 14th, 2025, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had quote thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy, and that lawyers aren’t the ones getting in the way” unquote. Secretary Hegseth undermined effective journalistic oversight by expelling the traditional Pentagon press corps and imposing credentialling rules that restricted journalists from soliciting or publishing unapproved materials, thereby weakening independent reporting on civilian harm on matters affecting the welfare and safety of the United States service members by journalists most familiar with the Department of Defense.
These actions were not isolated administrative or rhetorical choices.

Taken together, they degraded the personnel, institutional systems, independent legal review, and civilian protection safeguards upon which the Department of Defense relies to verify the current status of proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, reassess targets as circumstances change, and prevent or mitigate civilian harm.

The foreseeable consequences of Secretary Hegsth scheme manifested in the United States strike on the Shajara Taya Bay Elementary School which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic failures in the Department of Defense targeting process.

The events of that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows. On the morning of February 28th, 2026, at approximately 9:45 a.m. local time, the United States in partnership with Israel launched Operation Epic Fury, commencing the 2026 Iran War.

Within the first hour of the US/Israeli offensive into southern Iran, three BGM 109 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from United States Navy warships impacted the elementary school. between 10:23 and 10:45 a.m. local time. Because the war was commenced mid- morning on a Saturday, the first day of the Iranian work week, students were in attendance at the school dep despite an attempted evacuation of the school. At the time of the first cruise missiles impact, between 170 and 264 students were present in the facility, most of whom were girls between the ages of seven and 12.

Whereas it is unclear how many casualties were inflicted by the first impact which caused a partial destruction of the structure and the collapse of its roof, it is reported that students were then sheltered in a prayer room deeper in the facility, waiting for rescuers when a second and a third missile in rapid succession impacted the building.

Reported death tolls from the strikes on the elementary school indicate that at least 156 civilians were killed with some reports suggesting the civilian death toll surpassed 170. Those killed include at least 120 school children, 26 teachers, seven parents attempting to evacuate their children, a school bus driver, a pharmacy technician from a nearby clinic, and the six-month-old unborn child of one of the teachers. was also killed in the attack. An estimated 95 other individuals were wounded. Under United States military doctrine and the law of armed conflict, which Secretary Hegsth is obligated to uphold, the lawfulness of an attack does not depend solely upon whether civilians were deliberately selected for the purpose of harming them.

The obligations of distinction, target verification, and feasible precaution require military decision makers to determine in good faith that an object is a lawful military objective on the basis of information reasonably available at the time. A failure to undertake the verification and review required by those obligations may render an attack unlawful. A failure directly caused by Secretary Hegseth’s dismantling of key infrastructure designed to prevent such errors. With respect to the strike on the elementary school, those institutional failures manifested in systemic non-compliance with Department of Defense targeting and doctrine and legal guidance.

The strike on the elementary school was not an isolated targeting failure divorced from the conduct of the Secretary of Defense. Nor can Secretary Hegseth’s conduct be dismissed as a single targeting error or an isolated failure in the fog of war. The elementary school was struck after Secretary Hegseth sought to repeal congressionally-mandated civilian protection requirements, dismantled the department’s civilian harm mitigation infrastructure, removed the senior most judge advocates general responsible for independent legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the national defense strategy, and publicly denigrated legal restraints on military force as object obstacles to maximum lethality. He thereby weakened nearly every institutional safeguard designed to minimize civilian casualties inflicted by the United States military and then presided over a targeting process in which a functioning elementary school was struck three times, killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, mostly children.

Such conduct reflects not merely a failure of judgment, but an extraordinary abuse of the powers entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and a profound disregard for the civilians his department was obligated to protect and the service members he was entrusted to lead.

In all of this, Secretary Hegseth willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict, chilled and rendered ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, and therefore foreseeably affected the death and injury of over 200 civilians to the manifest injury of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the law, the lawful conduct of the United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States armed forces and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegsth thus warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article five, extrajudicial killings.

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives, shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 243 persons aboard aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that chilled independent legal review within the Department of Defense, constructed a purported legal basis for the use of military force without constitutional or statutory authorization, and displaced long-standing precedent and codified marine time maritime law enforcement practices that are jurisdictionally assigned to the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies by substituting in such place, the use of summary lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps elements.

While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also oversaw orders denying quarter and failing to provide rescue, including secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors who were ordered to combat and the abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, thereby endangering members of our own armed forces in future military engagements. by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment. by subjecting persons merely suspected of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process without congressional authorization and without establishing a law lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military targets.

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.

Such is a power such a power is foreign to the rule of law, repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United States and the Western world and contrary to the United States law and customary international law.

This conduct undermined the integrity and credibility of the United States and its armed forces, damaged the diplomatic standing of the United States and injured the interests of this nation.

Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

Secretary Hegsth authorized strikes beginning on September 2nd, 2025 without authorization from Congress pursuant to article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution, and in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, as provided in Chapter 33 of Title 50, United States Code.

Secretary Hegseth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against Seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in international waters comprising at least 69 separate attack events. 46 in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 21 in the Caribbean Sea, and two in unspecified locations, which at least struck 73 vessels and killed at least 243 individuals.

In doing so, Secretary Hegseth displaced the statutory framework established by Sections 70503 and 70504 of Title 46, United States Code, under which Congress expressly treated maritime narcotics offenses, including conduct occurring on the high seas, as federal crimes subject to apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States District Court, and instead treated such offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting.

Secretary Hegseth disregarded the statutory restrictions in Section 274 and 275 of Title 10 United States Code governing direct participation by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in civilian law enforcement activities, including federal narcotics enforcement by employing lethal military force against persons suspected of drug trafficking absent any congressionally enacted authorization for the use of military force or other statutory authorization for such direct military action.

Secretary Hegseth disregarded the maritime law enforcement framework established by Sections 102 and 522 of Title 14 United States Code as well as section 279 of title 10 United States Code under which only the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure and arrest. And he did so by directing members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps to employ lethal lethal military force in place of the law enforcement process.

Secretary Hegseth established targeting guidelines for such strikes on August 5th, 2025 by issuing an execute order directing the use of United States military force against persons alleged to be members or affiliates of certain designated terrorist organizations as follows. Secretary Hegseth established guidelines that used designated terrorist organizations as a targeting category. Notwithstanding that term is not a congressionally created designation conferring authority to use military force.
Did not require positive identification of any targeted person, but instead required only reasonable certainty that such person was a member or an affiliate of a designated terrorist organization, a threshold lower than the near certainty standard established for drone strikes on suspected al-Qaeda militants during the congressionally authorized global war on terror and did not require the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted vehicles sorry vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in association with the designated terrorist organization.

Secretary Hegseth in the course of such strikes oversaw orders resulting in the denial of quarter and the failure to provide timely rescue for shipwreck survivors of initial strikes, including on September 2, 2025. During the first strike of the campaign, the United States Navy attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela and the nearby Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel.

Approximately 45 minutes later, while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a secondary strike was ordered, killing both survivors. In doing so, Secretary Hegsth has endangered members of our armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversar adversaries to subject our American service members to the same treatment. And on December 30th, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels approximately 400 nautical miles southwest of Okos, Guatemala in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three persons and leaving eight other shipwrecked, although the campaign had been underway for approximately 4 months. No recovery assets had been prepositioned to rescue survivors.

Rescue assets did not arrive until approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all eight shipwrecked survivors had died at sea.

In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our own armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging our adversaries to subject our American service members to the same treatment. Secretary Hegseth took actions to preempt, constrain, and overcome independent legal objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including Secretary Hegth removed the senior most judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably chilling the exercise of independent legal judgment by judge advocates tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness of combat operations and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on February 25th, 2025 that he did not want military lawyers to serve as roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander-in-chief.

Secretary Hegseth employed an inter agency group of lawyers comprising four career officials and four political appointees from the Department of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel to develop a classified memorandum purporting to establish a legal basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections to their execution, falsely asserting the following: that the United States is engaged in non- international armed conflict with 24 Latin American designated terrorist organizations, thereby attempting to displace the governing law enforcement framework as established in Paragraph 2, and substitute an armed conflict framework for the conduct of military operations against such organizations, despite the absence of congressional authorization for such military action.

Notwithstanding that pursuant to Little V. Barum 1804 and utility air regulatory group versus EPA 2014, an executive branch legal memorandum cannot enlarge authority conferred by Congress or legalize conduct otherwise unauthorized by statute, the strike that the strikes do not constitute hostilities within the meaning of Chapter 33 of Title 50 United States code because they do not place United States personnel in danger presumptively on the basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense a predicate that would likewise mean that any military action conducted by drone or any air strike against a target lacking air defense capabilities could also not constitute hostilities that the designated terrorist organization ations are engaged in armed violence against the security forces of allied nations, including Mexico.

And such violence is financed through cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against cocaine shipments and the deaths of persons aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage. irrational a rationale inconsistent with the execute order targeting guidelines described in paragraph 3 which did not require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel and instead authorized targeting based on alleged designated terrorist organization membership or affiliation. Secretary Hegseth abused the authority and trust vested in him as Secretary of Defense, not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force, resulting in the summary execution of at least 243 persons in international waters, but also by using his office to compel members of the armed forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be constructed and imposed upon the chain of command. In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hegseth endangered members of our United States armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject our American service members to such treatment.
Secretary Hegsth further endangered United States law enforcement personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established maritime law enforcement practices of interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution. by demonstrating that vessels merely suspected of narcotics trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicted and arrested.
Secretary Hegsth foreseeably increase the likelihood that persons above aboard such vessels were will perceive future encounters with United States authorities as threats to their lives and respond with lethal force rather than surrender.

In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign, but also made lawful enforcement of the United States narcotics laws at seas more dangerous for the Coast Guard and other federal personnel charged with carrying them out. In all of this, Secretary Hegsth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America. Wherefore, Secretary Hegseth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of the United States diplomacy and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.