WASHINGTON, November 9, 2026 — The Hegseth impeachment push gained new political weight after House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said he would support an effort to remove the defence secretary, backing a resolution that Republican Representative Thomas Massie plans to bring back to the House as lawmakers return from the midterm campaign. The move centres on allegations that Hegseth abused his office and helped prosecute the war against Iran without the congressional authorisation required by law; those claims have not been adjudicated.
Jeffries made his position explicit during an interview on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. Asked whether Democrats would support Massie’s resolution, he said, “I’m a hard Yes on the Hegseth resolution,” and accused the defence secretary of weakening national security and helping drive a costly war that has raised prices for American households. He said Democrats would discuss the measure when their caucus meets on Tuesday.
Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, has said he intends to reintroduce an eight-article impeachment resolution as soon as Monday. The proposal was first brought forward in September, but the House left Washington before lawmakers could vote on it. The latest push comes after Democrats won control of both chambers in the November 3 midterm elections, although the new Congress will not take office until January.
The timing creates an unusual political test. Any vote held before the new Congress convenes would take place under the existing Republican majority, not the incoming Democratic one. Jeffries’ endorsement could strengthen support among Democrats, but the measure would still need Republican defections to pass the current House. Even if the House approved impeachment, removing Hegseth would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
Jeffries’ statement is more definite than the broader calls for oversight that Democrats made during the campaign. He described himself as firmly behind the impeachment resolution and argued that Hegseth’s conduct had made the United States less safe. His comments followed a Republican electoral defeat in which the war with Iran, higher energy prices and the administration’s handling of the conflict became central points of criticism.
The Democratic leader also said the party would examine the conduct of the Pentagon and the administration more broadly when it takes control of Congress in January. That work is expected to include scrutiny of the decision to launch the war, the removal of senior military officers, the administration’s policy on Ukraine and US strikes against vessels it says were involved in drug trafficking. The impeachment push is therefore part of a larger oversight agenda rather than an isolated dispute over one Cabinet official.
Massie’s role makes the effort politically unusual. He is a Republican who has repeatedly challenged President Donald Trump on the war and other issues, and he has argued that Congress must reassert its constitutional role in decisions about military force. His resolution is not a Democratic bill written to attack a Republican administration; it is a measure introduced by a member of the president’s own party, although its strongest support may now come from Democrats.
Jeffries’ endorsement does not guarantee a vote or determine the outcome. House leaders control the chamber’s schedule, and the precise procedural path for a reintroduced resolution had not been confirmed at the time of this report. The previous measure was designed to force the House to confront the allegations, but a new filing could face procedural decisions and negotiations over when lawmakers return to legislative business.
Massie’s original resolution contained eight articles of impeachment. Its central charge concerned the war against Iran, with Massie arguing that Hegseth helped conduct hostilities without the congressional authorisation required under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The measure also raised allegations about the conduct of military operations, the protection of civilians and the use of executive power in other national-security actions.
The resolution’s allegations are claims made by a member of Congress, not findings by a court or a completed congressional investigation. Hegseth has rejected the impeachment effort as politically motivated, and the Pentagon has defended his leadership. The secretary has argued that the campaign against Iran was necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and has said the military is acting within the administration’s legal authority.
The War Powers Resolution is central to the dispute because it was designed to limit the ability of a president to keep US forces in hostilities without congressional involvement. It requires the president to notify Congress when forces are introduced into hostilities and sets a timetable for ending certain deployments unless lawmakers authorise them. The administration’s position on the Iran campaign and the legal basis for continuing operations have been contested by lawmakers from both parties.
Massie’s earlier articles also addressed other military and national-security actions, including strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels and operations outside Iran. The precise scope of the reintroduced text will matter. If the new resolution changes the allegations or adds new conduct, lawmakers will have to assess those claims separately rather than assume that the September version and the new filing are identical.
Impeachment is a constitutional process, not a criminal conviction. The House can approve articles by a simple majority, after which the Senate holds a trial. A two-thirds majority is required to convict and remove an official. The threshold is high, and no public count has established that the Senate would have the votes needed to remove Hegseth even if the House passed the resolution.
The conflict with Iran has lasted more than eight months and has become a source of division inside both parties. The Trump administration says military action was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Critics argue that the campaign has lacked a clear exit strategy, has increased energy costs and has exposed US forces and regional partners to continuing risks.
Those disagreements were visible in the weeks before the midterms. Vice President JD Vance linked the war to the Republican losses, while Rubio defended the decision to confront Iran as necessary even if it was unpopular. Trump has said he would make the same decision again, and he has continued to express confidence in Hegseth. The president’s backing makes it less likely that the secretary will leave voluntarily before the impeachment effort reaches the House.
Hegseth’s relationship with Congress is also relevant to the Pentagon’s budget and oversight work. The department has sought a large defence spending package, while lawmakers have questioned the administration’s military priorities and management decisions. An impeachment vote could become a public test of how much support Hegseth retains among Republicans who are concerned about the war, the cost of operations and the secretary’s treatment of senior military leaders.
Democrats are also expected to use their incoming committee majorities to seek documents and testimony on the war and other military operations. They can hold hearings, issue subpoenas and challenge the administration’s explanations, although the White House and Pentagon can contest requests and invoke executive-branch privileges. The prospect of sustained oversight may matter even if the impeachment resolution fails.
For Hegseth, the immediate challenge is political as well as legal. A House vote would require members to take a public position on the conduct of the war and the secretary’s leadership. Republican lawmakers who have criticised the conflict may face pressure from voters who want a clearer end to the fighting, while others may argue that impeachment during an active conflict would weaken the military chain of command. Democrats will have to show that their case is based on specific alleged violations rather than a disagreement with the administration’s policy.
The next steps depend on Massie’s filing and the House’s procedural response. If he reintroduces a privileged resolution, it could force lawmakers to address the measure within a short period, but the exact timetable will depend on the text and the rules in effect when the House resumes. Jeffries has said Democrats will discuss the issue on Tuesday, and the party’s support will become clearer after that meeting.
Republican support remains uncertain. Some lawmakers have criticised Hegseth’s management and the war, but others have defended the administration’s use of force or rejected impeachment as partisan. A successful House vote would require a coalition that extends beyond Democrats, while a Senate conviction would require a much broader agreement that is not currently evident.
The resolution could still have consequences even if it fails. It may force a detailed debate about congressional authority, civilian protection and the legal basis for the Iran campaign. It could also shape future investigations into the Pentagon and influence negotiations over military spending. The most important evidence will be the text Massie files, the administration’s formal response and the questions lawmakers ask under oath.
For now, Jeffries’ endorsement has moved the impeachment effort from a Republican lawmaker’s promise into a more serious test of congressional accountability. But the proposal remains a set of allegations awaiting a political process, not a finding that Hegseth has committed impeachable offences. Whether it advances will depend on Massie’s next filing, the current House majority and the willingness of Republicans to join Democrats in challenging the defence secretary.
Comments (0)
Be the first to comment. Comments are published after moderation.