United States: Thomas Massie Reinstates Pete Hegseth's Charge

The US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, is facing a new parliamentary offensive. On Monday, November 9, 2026, Republican representative Thomas Massie reinvigorated a resolution calling for his indictment, mainly for his conduct of the war against Iran. WELT, Kurier and the Süddeutsche Zeitung report the same initiative: a vote could take place this week, possibly on Wednesday. The laying of these charges does not mean their adoption by the House or the removal of the Minister. [S2] [S3] [S4]

Relaunching after the elections

The process continued a first attempt in September. According to NPR, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, had then interrupted the proceedings before the vote, resulting in the expiry of the resolution and forcing Massie to resubmit it. Kurier also mentions this earlier deposit, while Süddeutsche Zeitung describes the blocking before the mid-term elections. It is therefore a resurgence, not an entirely new dispute. [S2] [S3] [S9]

This initiative comes after the Republicans' electoral defeat. They still have a short majority in the House, before the new Congress was established in January. Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries supports the move. On the Republican side, French Hill did not rule out voting in his favour, but wanted to hear the debate: this opening was not a firm commitment, nor was it proof that a majority was acquired. [S2] [S3] [S4]

Eight accusations, from war to individual freedoms

The resolution contains eight articles, three of which concern the powers of Congress over the war against Iran. Massie blames Hegseth for having engaged and continued hostilities without parliamentary authorization, beyond the legal deadlines invoked in the text, and despite a resolution calling for the withdrawal of forces. The document issued by his office sets out the prosecution's arguments: it does not constitute a decision establishing these violations. [S7] [S8]

Other grievances include the protection of civilians, strikes on suspected drug vessels, alleged reprisals against Senator Mark Kelly, the capture of Nicolás Maduro and operations in Yemen. The Süddeutsche Zeitung mentions in particular an attack on an Iranian school in the accusations concerning civilian victims. These qualifications are those of the promoters of the resolution; The articles consulted do not allow each case to be decided. [S2] [S7] [S9]

Freedom of expression is a distinct aspect. Massie accuses the minister of trying to punish Mark Kelly after a video in which he reminded the military that they could refuse illegal orders. The resolution presents these measures as intimidation that may restrict the words of former military personnel and parliamentary control of the executive. This interpretation is explicitly included in the prosecution, without in itself a definitive legal statement. [S8] [S9]

Hegseth defends his record, his opponents invoke his responsibility

Hegseth rejects the approach as a political operation directed against him. He defends the results of the operations and asserts that challenging them amounts to questioning the soldiers and their achievements. He announced a press conference on Tuesday at the Pentagon, his first in several months, and said he was not worried about the procedure. The publications consulted report this announcement, not the conclusions of this conference. [S2] [S3] [S4]

Massie objected to this defence as a distinction: approving a war or judging an effective minister was not sufficient, in his view, to determine whether his actions warranted indictment. The issue of responsibility is specific: to examine the decisions of a civilian leader does not necessarily amount to a collective judgement of the military who execute them. This distinction is at the heart of the contradictory arguments reported by WELT and Süddeutsche Zeitung. [S2] [S4]

The objection is not just from the minister. Republican representative Warren Davidson believes that Hegseth would be taken as a scapegoat while, according to him, several administrations have circumvented parliamentary prerogatives in matters of war. It favours fiscal leverage: to deny funding to the conflict rather than to remove the head of the Pentagon. This position proposes another means of control, without responding alone to the merits of individual accusations. [S9]

A vote in the House would not be enough

The procedure distinguishes two decisions. The Chamber may adopt indictment articles by a simple majority. The Senate then examines evidence and testimony; A conviction leading to removal requires two thirds of the senators present. Hegseth therefore retains his functions at this stage. WELT, Kurier and NPR consider its eviction difficult, but this assessment remains a political prognosis. [S3] [S4] [S6] [S9]

For the persons concerned, the charges raise concrete questions: protection of civilians, use of force against suspects and freedom to challenge orders. Their seriousness makes the examination of the facts indispensable, without exempting from distinguishing established allegations and responsibilities. Future parliamentary decisions will determine whether these grievances lead to an indictment and then a Senate trial. [S6] [S8] [S9]