Washington returns to a different country
Republicans returned to Washington on Monday as an outgoing majority, still soaked from the biggest wave election since Watergate. They have five weeks before Democrats take both chambers on January 3, and a long list of things they’d like to finish: a spending deal before the December 11 shutdown deadline, a stack of judicial confirmations, and money to restock the munitions burned through in Iran. Sen. Rick Scott wants them working straight through Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The first fight of the lame duck, though, didn’t come from Democrats. It came from Kentucky.
Rep. Thomas Massie, the Republican who lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger in May, rose on the House floor Monday and introduced updated articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The 34-page resolution contains eight charges. Because Massie invoked the House’s privilege procedure, leadership faces a two-legislative-day clock. House action could come Wednesday, which happens to be Veterans Day.
Voters elected a new Congress last Tuesday. This week we find out whether the old one was listening.
The midterms are over. The questions that brought people to the polls haven’t gone anywhere: the cost of health care, immigration, the war in Iran, and whether anyone in Washington intends to enforce the limits on presidential power. Both parties now have to show what their promises mean in practice.
Following what happens next requires paying attention to how those decisions are reported. That’s why I turn to Ground News. It brings coverage of the same story together so I can quickly compare reporting, understand what’s dividing the coverage, and find perspectives I might otherwise miss.
Take the impeachment effort against Hegseth. On Ground News, The Washington Post’s headline emphasizes the Iran war and the allegations against him. CBS News highlights the possibility of a House vote within days. Austria’s Kronen Zeitung presents him as a scapegoat for Republicans’ election losses.
Those frames direct our attention toward different questions. Are we examining the secretary’s conduct, counting votes, or watching a party search for someone to blame? Comparing them helps me notice when the political survival story threatens to swallow the accountability story.
Ground News lets me see those headlines together, alongside information about the outlets’ political leanings. That gives me more context for evaluating the reporting and deciding what deserves a closer look.
Whatever comes next, I want that wider view. Use our link to get 40% off Ground News’ Vantage plan and give yourself more context for the decisions Washington is about to make.
Because the election settled who gets to govern. We still need to watch how they do it.
Eight articles, 34 pages
Massie’s resolution is long, but its charges sort into three piles.
War powers come first. The Iran war began on February 28 without a declaration of war or specific authorization from Congress. In June, both chambers approved H.Con.Res. 86, directing the president to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran—the first War Powers concurrent resolution of its kind to clear both chambers.
There’s a constitutional wrinkle here. Whether a concurrent resolution can legally compel withdrawal without presidential approval is disputed, particularly after the Supreme Court’s ruling against legislative vetoes. The administration contests its binding effect.
But the congressional message was hardly subtle. The House voted 215–208 on June 3. The Senate followed 50–48 on June 23. Both chambers directed withdrawal. Hegseth continued overseeing the war, and Massie’s first three articles accuse him of violating the War Powers Resolution’s authorization and termination requirements.
Then there are the dead.
Article IV charges Hegseth with dismantling much of the Pentagon’s civilian-harm mitigation machinery, including eliminating more than 90% of the personnel assigned to combatant commands, before three Tomahawk missiles struck a girls’ elementary school in Minab. According to the resolution, at least 156 civilians died, including at least 120 children.
Article V covers the maritime strike campaign. Massie’s updated filing alleges 69 attack events involving 73 vessels, killing at least 243 people, including follow-up strikes against shipwrecked survivors. Article VIII addresses the 2025 bombing campaign in Yemen, which the resolution says killed an estimated 224 civilians.
The remaining charges concern Hegseth’s retaliation against Sen. Mark Kelly for reminding service members they can refuse illegal orders, and the January raid that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
These are impeachment allegations, not findings of guilt. But they are specific allegations, laid out in 34 pages, with enough dates, documents and casualties to warrant more than a dismissive wave of the hand.
Hegseth calls the whole thing a “sham” pushed by a “disgruntled, defeated congressman.”
He’s right that Massie lost his primary. So did Hegseth’s party lose its congressional majorities. And unlike Hegseth, Massie appears to have read the election returns.
An AP survey found roughly six in ten midterm voters believed military action against Iran was the wrong decision, although affordability and corruption weighed more heavily in their congressional choices. Voters have delivered a political judgment. The House now faces a constitutional one: whether the secretary’s conduct warrants impeachment.
Those are different questions. Massie’s resolution demands an answer to the second.
The Wednesday deadline and the ghost of William Belknap
Massie has offered Hegseth one way out of his impeachment effort. If Hegseth resigns, Massie says he won’t press the articles.
He told The Washington Post there’s a “decent chance” impeachment passes and becomes a permanent “stain” on Hegseth’s record. He added, “If he’s contemplating leaving, this would be a good time to do it.”
Hegseth has spent much of his tenure embracing the title Secretary of War. He might want to study the personnel history.
In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap, caught in a kickback scandal, resigned minutes before the House was scheduled to vote on his impeachment. The House impeached him anyway, unanimously.
The Senate subsequently voted that it had jurisdiction to try a former official and proceeded with the trial. A majority voted to convict Belknap on all five articles, but none reached the required two-thirds. Some senators who voted to acquit questioned the Senate’s jurisdiction over someone who had already resigned.
The lesson for Hegseth is straightforward: resignation can end Massie’s initiative, but it cannot extinguish the House’s constitutional authority. Massie’s offer is a political accommodation, not an immunity agreement.
And the historical record has a rather long memory.
Now the math.
Republicans hold such a narrow House majority that they can afford only a couple of defections on a party-line vote. Massie is one potential defector. Rep. Neal Dunn, who has been ill, hasn’t voted since July. Assuming full attendance and united Democratic support, three Republicans voting for impeachment would be sufficient. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries says he’s a “hard yes.”
House Oversight Chair James Comer has publicly acknowledged serious questions about Hegseth. Rep. French Hill says he wants to distinguish poor performance from an impeachable offense. Rep. Don Bacon has called on Hegseth to resign while weighing the resolution.
The first vote may not be on impeachment at all. Republican leadership could move to table the resolution or refer it to committee, avoiding a direct vote on the eight charges.
Speaker Mike Johnson called the impeachment effort a stunt in September and said it would be tabled. Instead, the House recessed early, putting off the confrontation until after the election.
That bought several weeks. It didn’t buy a better election result.
Meanwhile, at the White House
Trump’s defense of Hegseth has been enthusiastic, if not entirely consistent.
On Sunday, he said the secretary was guilty of only two things: “basically winning two wars.”
But in the 60 Minutes interview recorded Friday, Ross Douthat asked whether Trump credited Hegseth for the Venezuela operation.
“No, but he was a part of it,” Trump replied, before giving credit instead to the soldiers, generals and military equipment.
So Hegseth is apparently the man who won two wars, but not the man who gets credit for one of them.
Trump has always been more reactive than responsive. The answer depends on which question is being asked. It’s a useful illustration of Trump’s reactive approach: praise for the reporter asking whether he’ll keep Hegseth, withheld credit for the interviewer asking what Hegseth actually accomplished. Responding would require reconciling the two.
The two supposed victories deserve closer examination. The Iran conflict remains unresolved; tens of billions have been spent, American troops have been killed and wounded, and the Pentagon wants more money to replace expended weapons. The Venezuelan operation, the one Trump wouldn’t credit Hegseth for, is Article VII of Massie’s impeachment resolution.
Winning has a flexible definition.
Behind the scenes, the picture is less certain. Two former administration officials told The Washington Post that, based on their contacts inside the White House, there is little appetite for a prolonged defense of Hegseth. Trump has publicly expressed confidence in him, but those former officials see no sign of a major White House campaign against the impeachment effort.
Hegseth has decided to take his defense directly to the public. This morning he announced a Tuesday press conference, his first in more than 180 days, to answer the impeachment challenge.
He also offered a revealing preview. Criticizing the administration’s military operations, he suggested, amounts to “taking issue with the troops and what they accomplished.”
A convenient conflation for someone with his character. Troops carry out orders. Civilian leaders are responsible for the decisions behind them. Accountability for one is not an attack on the other.
Then there’s Stephen Miller.
On Friday, Trump recorded that same 60 Minutes interview in which he acknowledged that his immigration crackdown might have been “too tough” and had hurt Republicans politically. He even suggested the possibility of negotiating an immigration compromise with Democrats.
Later that same day, he promoted Stephen Miller, a principal architect of that crackdown, to White House chief of staff.
The interview aired Sunday, providing viewers with the peculiar spectacle of a president acknowledging that a policy had gone too far shortly after elevating the man most closely associated with designing it.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, a Republican from Indiana, called the promotion a mistake. After a defeat like November 3, he said, “you have to fire people” rather than promote those responsible.
Susie Wiles, whom Miller replaced, had reportedly raised concerns about Hegseth’s conduct. Miller is a close political and personal ally of the defense secretary.
Trump’s personnel response to the election hasn’t involved much visible reconsideration. The policy can be too tough, while its architect is just right.
Todd Blanche has problems of his own
Hegseth isn’t the only Cabinet member attracting congressional attention.
In The New Republic, former federal prosecutor Harry Litman argues that the more straightforward impeachment case is against Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Litman distinguishes officials who abuse power within a democratic system and those who undermine the system’s ability to hold them accountable. His proposed charge against Blanche is retaliatory prosecution: allegedly using federal law enforcement against the president’s political enemies, including James Comey, Letitia James and Cassidy Hutchinson.
Trump supplied a fresh controversy on Saturday.
In a Truth Social post, he ordered the Justice Department to investigate Democratic lawmakers who had discussed impeaching Blanche and other administration officials. He called their statements “extortion at the highest level” and suggested they belonged in prison.
For the record, Article I gives the House the sole power of impeachment. The Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative acts from executive interference. Announcing an intention to exercise lawful congressional oversight is not, by itself, a criminal offense.
Asked Sunday on CNN whether lawmakers could face prosecution, Blanche said it depended on what crimes they had committed. He did not identify a specific criminal statute or confirm that an investigation had begun.
Threatening an investigation isn’t proof that one exists, but the president’s explicit instruction raises its own questions about the independence of federal law enforcement.
The Blanche and Hegseth stories intersect at Article VI.
Hegseth censured Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy combat veteran, and initiated action affecting his retired rank after Kelly joined other Democratic lawmakers in a video reminding service members of their obligation to refuse unlawful orders.
Blanche’s Justice Department went further, seeking indictments against Kelly and five colleagues over the video. A federal grand jury declined to indict them.
Litman argues that retaliatory prosecutions are particularly damaging because they can intimidate witnesses, political critics and public officials even when no conviction follows. The process itself can become the punishment.
Massie has another challenge underway. His Epstein Files Transparency Act II would allow victims, state and local authorities, and members of Congress to sue the attorney general over allegedly unlawful withholding or redaction of Epstein-related records. As of the last publicly documented count, its discharge petition had 216 signatures, two short of the 218 needed to force consideration. Massie says he expects to secure the remaining signatures now that Congress has returned.
That is a separate legislative effort, not an impeachment charge against Blanche. But it adds another potential avenue for scrutiny of the Justice Department.
One defeated congressman. Two procedural countdowns. Two Cabinet officers.
Massie may be leaving Congress in January, but he isn’t exactly clearing out his desk.
Paying for the war while voting on its architect
The Republicans eager to work through Christmas have an awkward item on their legislative shopping list.
The Pentagon says it needs additional funding to replenish precision weapons expended in Iran. Some Republicans want to include that money in another reconciliation bill, allowing them to bypass a Democratic filibuster if the legislation satisfies the Senate’s budget rules.
So, in the same week that lawmakers may vote on impeaching the defense secretary over the conduct of the Iran war, they’re being asked to find more money for its consequences.
Congress is being asked to replenish weapons expended in a war it never specifically authorized, even as it considers impeaching the man overseeing their use.
The irony requires very little embellishment.The Economist warned last week that Democrats could squander their electoral mandate if subpoenas and impeachment proceedings crowd out work on affordability and health care.
Congress has never had to choose between governing and oversight. It has committees, appropriations authority, investigative powers, and a legislative calendar. Its members are expected to do more than one thing.
Oversight is supposed to inform governing. If the Pentagon needs billions more, Congress ought to know why, how the money was spent, and whether the decisions that created the expense were lawful. Writing a check is not a substitute for asking questions.
If the House impeaches Hegseth, the articles would go to the Senate, where conviction requires two-thirds of the senators present. In 2024, the Senate dismissed the impeachment articles against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas without conducting a full trial. The Senate could take a similar procedural route here.
Impeachment alone wouldn’t cost Hegseth his job, but it would leave a permanent mark on his record. That’s the stain Massie is talking about.
A Veterans Day reckoning
Wednesday’s proceedings could lead in several directions.
Hegseth could resign, and Massie could abandon his impeachment effort. Republican leaders could succeed in tabling the resolution or sending it to committee. Or the House could vote to impeach a defense secretary serving under a president of its own majority party.
Each outcome would tell us something about how the outgoing Congress is responding to November 3.
Wednesday is Veterans Day, and Pete Hegseth may find himself facing an impeachment reckoning on the very day America honors those who have served.
I won’t pretend to be dispassionate about the prospect. I’m positively gleeful.
American service members have died and been wounded. Civilians have died by the hundreds. Hegseth faces serious questions about the wars and military operations he has overseen, the safeguards meant to protect civilians, and the limits Congress placed, or sought to place, on executive military authority.
Holding civilian leadership accountable is in no way an insult to the troops. Quite the opposite. Service members swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the personal preferences of whoever occupies the Pentagon.
Veterans Day began as Armistice Day, commemorating the moment the guns fell silent at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918.
More than a century later, Congress has voted for American forces to withdraw from another war, and the administration has continued fighting. The resolution’s binding legal effect remains disputed, but the constitutional confrontation is unmistakable.
There is a certain historical symmetry in the possibility of an impeachment reckoning arriving on a day whose origins commemorate the end of a war.
As The Economist noted, voters did their job on November 3. The current Congress still has a job to do.
Wednesday may tell us whether any of its members have begun to take that responsibility differently.
FACT BOX: The Eight Articles Against Hegseth
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced revised articles of impeachment on November 9, 2026. The 34-page resolution contains eight charges, each seeking impeachment, trial, removal from office and disqualification from future federal office. These are allegations, not adjudicated findings.
I. Starting the Iran war unlawfully. Charges Hegseth with initiating hostilities on February 28, 2026, without a declaration of war, statutory authorization, an attack on the United States or an imminent threat.
II. Defying Congress. Both chambers approved H.Con.Res. 86 directing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iran—the House on June 3 and the Senate on June 23. Massie calls it the first such War Powers concurrent resolution to clear both chambers. Hostilities continued. The administration disputes the resolution’s binding legal effect.
III. Ignoring War Powers deadlines. Alleges that the statutory 60-day limit expired May 1, and even the maximum additional 30-day withdrawal period would have expired June 1. No required certification or congressional extension was issued.
IV. Dismantling civilian protections. Charges Hegseth with eliminating more than 90% of civilian-harm mitigation staff assigned to combatant commands and weakening congressionally mandated safeguards. Cites the Minab school strike, which the resolution says killed at least 156 civilians, including at least 120 children.
V. Extrajudicial killings. Alleges at least 69 maritime attack events involving 73 vessels, killing at least 243 people in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, including follow-up strikes against shipwrecked survivors.
VI. Retaliating against Sen. Mark Kelly. Charges Hegseth with suppressing constitutionally protected speech through censure, threats and punitive actions against the retired Navy captain over his video reminding service members of their obligation to refuse unlawful orders.
VII. Seizing Nicolás Maduro. Charges Hegseth with directing the unauthorized January 3, 2026, military operation in Caracas that captured Maduro and Cilia Flores and, according to the resolution, killed at least 83 people.
VIII. Unlawful war in Yemen. Alleges that Operation Rough Rider involved approximately 1,100 strikes over 52 days in 2025, killing an estimated 224 civilians. Cites leaked Signal messages as evidence that administration officials knew there was no imminent threat requiring immediate military action.
What happens next: House action on the resolution is possible by Wednesday, November 11—Veterans Day. Leadership could seek to table or refer it rather than permit a direct impeachment vote. Assuming full attendance and unanimous Democratic support, three Republican votes would be sufficient to impeach. Conviction and removal would require a two-thirds Senate majority of members present.
Primary source: Rep. Thomas Massie’s revised November 9, 2026, impeachment resolution (34-page PDF).
Thank you