WeVote
Log In

Bill

YA

Bill

HRES 1177

Impeaching Peter B. Hegseth, Secretary of Defense of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

119th Congress Introduced by Yassamin Ansari and 13 co-sponsors

The bill seeks to impeach the Secretary of Defense for high crimes and misdemeanors, citing unauthorized war actions, civilian harm, mishandling sensitive info, and abuse of power.

Submitted in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HRES 1177

Summary of H.Res. 1177 (119th Congress, 2nd Session)

Impeaching Peter B. Hegseth, Secretary of Defense of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Purpose and intent

  • The resolution seeks to impeach Peter B. Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, and to exhibit Articles of Impeachment against him in the U.S. Senate.
  • The underlying rationale is that Hegseth has demonstrated conduct constituting high crimes and misdemeanors in violation of his oath and duties as a public official, particularly in relation to military actions, oversight, and conduct affecting national security and the integrity of the armed forces.

Key provisions and allegations (Articles of Impeachment)

Article I: Unauthorized War Against Iran and Reckless Endangerment of U.S. Servicemembers

  • Claims lack of constitutional authority: Initiation and escalation of armed hostilities against Iran without a declared war or statutory authorization from Congress, in contravention of Article I and the War Powers Resolution.
  • Alleged failure to consult Congress: Did not seek meaningful congressional consultation prior to actions, undermining separation of powers.
  • Open-ended military operations: Authorized and advanced operations lacking defined objectives, lawful authorization, or clear strategic necessity, allegedly exposing U.S. servicemembers to risk.
  • Endangerment through risky plans: Endorsed plans involving significant risk, including potential ground operations in Iran.
  • General constitutional concerns: Accused of disregarding the Constitution and abusing power.

Article II: Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict and Targeting of Civilians

  • Civilian harm: Authorized or failed to prevent military actions resulting in civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure (citing a girls’ school in Minab).
  • Rules of engagement: Undermined or disregarded rules designed to minimize harm to noncombatants (including controversial strikes in the southern Caribbean).
  • Violations of international law: Statements suggesting no quarter or no mercy, raising concerns under the Geneva Conventions and U.S. legal obligations.

Article III: Negligence and Reckless Handling of Sensitive Military Information

  • Handling of sensitive information: Gross negligence in using unsecured communications (e.g., Signal app) to transmit or discuss operational details, in violation of U.S. law and military standards.
  • Operational security risk: Compromised security and endangered personnel due to improper information handling.

Article IV: Obstruction of Congressional Oversight

  • Information withholding: Failed to provide timely and complete information about military operations.
  • Withholding material facts: Reluctance to disclose civilian casualties and operational conduct in Iran, Venezuela, and other theaters.
  • Interference with Congress: Hampered Congress’s ability to perform constitutional oversight.

Article V: Abuse of Power and Politicization of the Armed Forces

  • Political use of military decisions: Inappropriately influenced military decisions for political purposes.
  • Interference in personnel matters: Targeted investigations against elected officials for political retaliation and undermined nonpartisan military norms.

Article VI: Conduct Bringing Disrepute Upon the United States and Its Armed Forces

  • Public trust and credibility: Actions diminished trust in the DoD and U.S. military credibility globally, including NATO commitments.
  • Disparagement and discrimination concerns: Alleged actions denigrating women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people of color; interfering in promotions; attacking women’s reproductive rights; promoting appearance standards that penalize Black servicemembers.

Who would be affected

  • Peter B. Hegseth, Secretary of Defense (subject of impeachment and potential removal).
  • The Department of Defense, U.S. armed forces, and broader national security apparatus.
  • Congress, through its impeachment and oversight responsibilities.
  • Public and international perception of U.S. military leadership and credibility.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Nature of action: The resolution is a formal impeachment inquiry, introducing six articles of impeachment.
  • Introduction date: April 15, 2026.
  • Referral: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary for consideration.
  • Status: As of the text, the bill has been introduced and referred; no Senate action is indicated in the provided material.

Observations

  • The document mirrors the structure of historical impeachment resolutions, enumerating specific Articles of Impeachment with detailed claims of misconduct spanning war powers, adherence to international law, information security, oversight, and conduct unbecoming of a secretary of defense.
  • If advanced, Articles would need to be transmitted to the Senate for trial, with a two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.