赫格塞斯为何面临弹劾？涉及伊朗、马杜罗等8项指控

Why is Hegseth facing impeachment? Inside the 8 articles on Iran, Maduro and more

2026-11-10T11:35:00-0500 / CBS News

Washington— Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky is leading a push to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accusing the Pentagon chief of a broad range of high crimes and misdemeanors stemming from his conduct in office.

The charges are laid out in a 34-page impeachment resolution spanning eight articles that Massie introduced in the lower chamber on Monday. The House is set to vote on whether to advance the articles at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday.

The outcome is uncertain. Some Republicans are upset with the administration’s handling of the Iran war, particularly given GOP losses in the midterm elections. House GOP leaders are vowing to defeat Massie’s resolution, but attendance issues among members who lost their election could open the door for its passage.

The impeachment resolution focuses on Hegseth’s involvement in some of the most controversial episodes of President Trump’s second term: the war with Iran, boat strikes in the Caribbean, an attack on an Iranian school and the capture of then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Hegseth called the resolution “political spectacle” in a press conference Tuesday morning.

Here’s a look at what the impeachment resolution says:

Article I: Starting the Iran war without authorization

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ap26314491849825.jpg

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a press conference at the Pentagon on Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2026. AP Photo/Nathan Howard

The first impeachment article accuses Hegseth of following illegal orders to begin the Iran war.

“Secretary Hegseth directed and caused United States Armed Forces to be introduced into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” even though Congress had not declared war or authorized an attack, Article I says.

The resolution says Hegseth acted in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which allows the president to use force without congressional authorization in narrow circumstances.

“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,” the article says.

Article II: Ignoring Congress to continue the war

The second article accuses Hegseth of ignoring a resolution approved by both chambers of Congress that directed the administration to end the Iran war.

The House and Senate both approved a measure in June that ordered the administration to “remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the mechanism for Congress to force the executive branch to end fighting under the War Powers Resolution. Massie’s impeachment article notes that this was “the first successful passage of such a legislative vehicle by both chambers of Congress” in history.

“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,” the impeachment article says.

At the time, the administration argued that “hostilities” with Iran had already ended, rendering the war powers measure inapplicable.

Article III: Ignoring the War Powers Resolution’s deadline

The War Powers Resolution says the executive branch must end the use of force within 60 days if Congress has not approved the operation, with another 30-day window to safely remove troops.

Mr. Trump notified Congress of the hostilities on March 2, so the 60-day window closed on May 1. In a letter that day, the administration told Congress that “hostilities” had “terminated.” Hegseth told senators: “We are in a ceasefire right now, which in our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.”

But the impeachment resolution says Hegseth kept directing hostilities after that deadline and beyond June 1, “the date on which even the maximum possible additional 30-day withdrawal period would have expired.”

The article also says Hegseth directed U.S. forces to keep fighting “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.”

Article IV: Ignoring laws meant to minimize civilian casualties

The fourth article accuses Hegseth of dismantling systems and processes at the Pentagon that Congress established to minimize civilian casualties, saying that his actions led to the deadly strike on an Iranian school in the first wave of attacks against the country in February. The Tomahawk missile strike killed roughly 170 civilians, most of them children, Iranian media has reported. The U.S. has not directly accepted responsibility for the attack.

The resolution says Hegseth oversaw “the systemic 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 operations.” The article cites Hegseth’s cuts to staff dedicated to mitigating civilian casualties, his firing of the military’s top lawyers and his public comments about the “stupid rules of engagement.”

Hegseth’s actions laid the groundwork for the strike on the school, Massie alleges.

“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,” the article says.

“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 isolated failure in the fog of war,” the resolution says.

Article V: Carrying out “extrajudicial killings” through boat strikes

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/drug-strike.jpg

Video of a U.S. strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean on Sept. 19, 2026. U.S. Southern Command

The fifth article centers on the Pentagon’s campaign against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean. The resolution says the strikes have killed at least 243 people since September 2025.

Massie accuses Hegseth of using the military to target suspects of crimes.

“By subjecting persons merely suspected of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process, without congressional authorization, and without establishing a 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,” the article says.

The article also cites the first strike of the campaign, on Sept. 2, 2025, when the military hit the same boat a second time.

“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,” the resolution says. “In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment.”

Article VI: Retaliating against Sen. Mark Kelly

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2259783494.jpg

Sen. Mark Kelly speaks after departing federal court on Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Heather Diehl / Getty Images

The sixth article accuses Hegseth of “retaliating against a Member of Congress for constitutionally protected speech,” specifically Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona.

In November 2025, Kelly, a retired Navy captain, appeared in a video with other lawmakers to deliver a message to members of the military and intelligence community: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”

Hegseth issued a letter of censure and threatened to reduce Kelly’s rank, which would have cut his retirement benefits. A federal judge blocked the move.

Massie’s resolution says Hegseth “weaponized the Department of Defense to chill a core function of the Legislative Branch” and “place the First Amendment rights of millions of United States veterans at risk of irreparable harm.”

Article VII: The capture of Venezuela’s Maduro

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2254194605.jpg

Nicolás Maduro arrives in handcuffs at a Manhattan helipad in New York on Jan. 5, 2026. XNY/Star Max/GC Images

Article VII deals with the military operation to capture Maduro and his wife in Caracas in January 2026. It calls the raid “an act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement, though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil reserves.”

The resolution says the operation involved more than 200 special operations personnel and more than 150 aircraft and drones, and killed at least 83 people. It argues Hegseth acted without a declaration of war or authorization from Congress, in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

The article cites Mr. Trump’s remarks after the raid that “we’re going to run the country” and that U.S. oil companies would “go in… and start making money.”

Hegseth “gambled the lives of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel in order to facilitate the illegal taking of national oil,” the article says.

Article VIII: Strikes on Yemen

The eighth and final article focuses on more than 1,100 U.S. strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen between March and May 2025.

The article again accuses Hegseth of using military force without congressional authorization and says the strikes led to civilian casualties.

“In less than eight weeks, there were nearly as many civilian deaths in Yemen as United States military actions had caused in that country during the preceding twenty-three years,” the article says.

The article cites leaked messages from Hegseth and other top officials in a group chat on Signal that The Atlantic published last year. It argues that the conversation shows the administration knew the Houthis did not pose an imminent threat that would have required an immediate U.S. response.