- Targeted stakeholdersReinforces congressional oversight and the constitutional war powers role of the legislature.
- Targeted stakeholdersSignals accountability for alleged violations of the law of armed conflict and civilian protection.
- SeniorsAims to deter future unauthorized military actions by senior officials.
Impeaching Peter B. Hegseth, Secretary of Defense of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution impeaches Secretary of Defense Peter B.
Hegseth, alleging high crimes and misdemeanors.
It presents six articles accusing him of initiating unauthorized hostilities with Iran, violating the laws of armed conflict, mishandling classified information, obstructing Congress, politicizing the military, and bringing disrepute upon the Department of Defense.
Impeachment resolution may pass a sympathetic House but achieving Senate conviction and removal is rare and difficult.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution conforms to the structural norms of an impeachment instrument: it impeaches the named official and sets out multiple articles of alleged 'high crimes and misdemeanors' organized into numbered clauses, and it references relevant constitutional and international legal frameworks. The document is clear in purpose and sufficiently specific in charge categories to put the House and the Senate on notice of the grounds for impeachment.
Whether Secretary initiated unauthorized war versus exercising defense authority.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- Targeted stakeholdersMay be viewed as politicizing military accountability and exacerbate civil-military tensions.
- Targeted stakeholdersCould disrupt Defense Department leadership and continuity during active operations, risking readiness.
- Targeted stakeholdersSets a precedent that could broaden impeachment use for disputed policy or operational decisions.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Whether Secretary initiated unauthorized war versus exercising defense authority.
Likely views the resolution as necessary accountability for alleged abuses of power, unlawful use of force, and discriminatory personnel actions.
Emphasizes enforcing constitutional war powers, protecting civilians and servicemembers, and upholding civil‑military norms.
Cautious support for oversight but insists on strong factual grounding and narrow scope.
Wants due process, bipartisan fact-finding, and careful consideration of national security tradeoffs before endorsing removal.
Likely views the resolution as a partisan attack that risks undermining civilian leadership of the military and command effectiveness.
Skeptical of the allegations absent clear criminal conduct and concerned about national security consequences.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Impeachment resolution may pass a sympathetic House but achieving Senate conviction and removal is rare and difficult.
- Availability and weight of evidence supporting the allegations
- Degree of bipartisan support in the House
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Whether Secretary initiated unauthorized war versus exercising defense authority.
Impeachment resolution may pass a sympathetic House but achieving Senate conviction and removal is rare and difficult.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution conforms to the structural norms of an impeachment instrument: it impeaches the named official and sets out multiple articles of alleged 'high crimes and misdem…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.