[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 145 (Tuesday, September 15, 2026)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE 
                        PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I 
seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the 
privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:
  Impeaching Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, for high crimes 
and misdemeanors.
  Resolved, that Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, also 
referred to as ``Secretary of War'' by the administration, is impeached 
for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of 
impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
  Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of 
the United States of America against Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of 
Defense, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for 
high crimes and misdemeanors.
  Article I: Waging War in Contravention of the War Powers Resolution 
of 1973, Section 2(c): The Constitution provides that the House of 
Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that 
civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of 
Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction 
of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

  In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in 
violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the 
commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense 
in that:
  The Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution--Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 11--vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers 
of war, while the military, administrative, and clemency clause of the 
United States Constitution--Article II, Section 2, Clause 1--
establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed 
forces, and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully 
authorized by Congress.
  In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which 
the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities 
absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United 
States enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers Resolution of 
1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard 
Nixon.
  Peter Brian Hegseth, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense, has 
executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2(c) of the War 
Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of title 50, United States 
Code.
  Section 2(c) provides that ``the constitutional powers of the 
President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces 
into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in 
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised 
only pursuant to one, a declaration of war; two, specific statutory 
authorization; or three, a national emergency created by attack upon 
the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed 
forces.''
  The War Powers Resolution further expressly provides that nothing 
contained therein shall be construed as granting any authority to the 
President to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities 
which the President would not otherwise possess in the absence of the 
resolution.
  Accordingly, the reporting and termination procedures subsequently 
established by the resolution do not themselves constitute affirmative 
statutory authorization to commence hostilities. Rather, the 
introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities must 
rest upon one of the authorities or circumstances identified in section 
2(c) in order for a conflict to be considered lawful.
  With respect to United States Armed Forces being entered into 
hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026, 
Secretary Hegseth directed and caused United States Armed Forces to be 
introduced into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, 
notwithstanding that one, Congress had not declared war against the 
Islamic Republic of Iran; two, Congress had not enacted any specific 
statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed 
Forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran; and 
three, no national emergency had been created by an attack by the 
Islamic Republic of Iran upon the United States, its territories or 
possessions, or its armed forces.
  Furthermore, no imminent attack upon the United States, its 
territories or possessions, or its armed forces existed, as affirmed in 
the March 17, 2026, resignation letter of Joe Kent, then-Director of 
the National Counterterrorism Center, in which he stated: ``I cannot in 
good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent 
threat to our Nation.''
  The introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities 
against the Islamic Republic of Iran, therefore, satisfied none of the 
circumstances expressly identified in section 2(c) of the War Powers 
Resolution and was undertaken, from its inception, without 
congressional authorization or independent Article II authority, 
thereby rendering both the initial introduction of United States Armed 
Forces into hostilities, and all subsequent actions taken thereafter, 
unlawful.

                              {time}  1210

  Secretary Hegseth, nevertheless, knowingly executed and implemented 
the unlawful order to commence such hostilities, employing powers, 
personnel, weapons, and resources of the Department of Defense to 
initiate military action against another sovereign nation, in violation 
of section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code.
  Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the 
following means:
  One, executing an unlawful order to commence hostilities, despite the 
absence of a declaration of war; specific statutory authorization; or a 
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its 
territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.
  Two, continuing to employ the personnel and resources of the 
Department of Defense in these hostilities after their unlawful 
initiation and in the continued absence of any subsequent declaration 
of war or specific statutory authorization by Congress.
  Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and 
implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation, 
notwithstanding the absence of congressional authorization, an attack 
upon the United States giving rise to the national emergency 
contemplated by law, or an imminent threat requiring immediate 
defensive action, thereby substituting unlawful executive action for 
the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress.
  In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to 
his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional 
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and 
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America.
  Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if 
allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly 
incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth, 
thus, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or 
profit under the United States.
  Article II, waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution 
of 1973, section 5(c): The Constitution provides that the House of 
Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil 
officers of the United States, including Secretary of Defense, shall be 
removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
  In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in 
violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the 
commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense 
in that:
  The Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers 
of war, while the Military, Administrative, and Clemency Clause of the 
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, 
establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces 
and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by 
Congress.
  In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which 
the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities 
absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United 
States of America enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers 
Resolution of 1973, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.
  Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so 
in contravention of section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, 
section 1544(c) of title 50, United States Code.
  Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that, at 
any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities 
outside the territory of the United States, its possessions, and 
territories, without a declaration of war or specific statutory 
authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if 
Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
  With respect to the United States Armed Forces being engaged in 
hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, pursuant to section 5(c), 
the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed, by the yeas and 
nays, to a concurrent resolution directing the President to remove 
United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran, H. 
Con. Res. 86 of the 119th Congress. The House agreed to this concurrent 
resolution on June 3, 2026, and the Senate agreed to it on June 23, 
2026, marking the first successful passage of such a legislative 
vehicle by both Chambers of Congress in the history of the United 
States.
  In response, and without lawful cause or excuse, Secretary Hegseth 
continued to direct the United States Armed Forces into hostilities 
with the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 26, 2026, and continues to do 
so in violation of section 1544(c) of title 50, United States Code.
  Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the 
following means:
  One, directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States 
military actions in Iran after both Chambers of Congress agreed to H. 
Con. Res. 86, thereby disregarding Congress' express and lawful 
direction that the United States Armed Forces be removed from such 
hostilities.
  Two, failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his 
authority as Secretary of Defense to withdraw United States Armed 
Forces from hostilities in Iran.
  Three, directing the Department of Defense to ignore the duly agreed 
concurrent resolution, thereby substituting the judgment of the 
executive branch for the constitutional and statutory judgment of 
Congress and nullifying Congress' exercise of its war powers.
  Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and 
sustained unlawful orders that treated the executive branch as 
possessing authority to determine when war may be commenced, how long 
it may be sustained, and whether Congress' directive to terminate 
hostilities must be obeyed.
  By implementing these orders, he effectuated, in practice, the 
unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran, despite 
Congress' exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and despite 
Congress' formal action directing the removal of United States Armed 
Forces from hostilities.
  This abuse of office frustrated Congress' ability to exercise its 
most solemn constitutional responsibility, enabled the continuation of 
unlawful war, and ignored and, thus, nullified the fundamental 
safeguard designed to prevent United States Armed Forces from being 
used at the will of the executive alone.
  In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to 
his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional 
government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and 
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
  Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if 
allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly 
incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth, 
thus, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or 
profit under the United States.
  Article III, waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution 
of 1973, section 5(b): The Constitution provides that the House of 
Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil 
officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, 
shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of 
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
  In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in 
violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the 
commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense 
in that the Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive 
initiatory powers of war while the Military, Administrative, and 
Clemency Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, 
establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces 
and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by 
Congress.
  In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which 
the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities 
absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United 
States enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers Resolution of 
1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard 
Nixon.

                              {time}  1220

  Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders, and continues to do 
so, in contravention of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 
1973, section 1544(b) of title 50, United States Code.
  Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that, 
within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted or required to be 
submitted to Congress by the President of the United States upon the 
Executive introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or 
into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly 
indicated by the circumstances, whichever is earlier, the Executive 
shall terminate any use of the United States Armed Forces . . . unless 
Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for 
such use of the United States Armed Forces, has extended by law such 
60-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed 
attack upon the United States.
  Section 5(b) further provides that, absent a formal congressional 
declaration of war, specific statutory Authorization for the Use of 
Military Force, or an extension of the 60-day period enacted into law 
during that period ``such 60-day period shall be extended for not more 
than an additional 30 days if the President determines and certifies to 
the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting 
the safety of the United States Armed Forces requires the continued use 
of such Armed Forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal 
of such forces.''
  With respect to the United States Armed Forces being entered into 
hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and indicating reliance on 
and fealty to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 as legal justification 
for entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities with Iran 
without the initiatory authority of Congress, President Donald J. Trump 
transmitted, on March 2, 2026, ``a letter informing Congress of action 
taken consistent with the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 
pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(3); Public Law 93-148, Sec. 4(a); (87 
Stat. 555) and 50 U.S.C. 1543(b); Public Law 93-148, Sec. 4(b); (87 
Stat. 555),'' concerning hostilities that had commenced in Iran on 
February 28, 2026.
  In the 60-day period following said transmission, Congress did not, 
and still has not, enacted any declaration or specific statutory 
authorization for the use of the United States Armed Forces in 
hostilities against Iran or extended the applicable 60-day period by 
law, despite remaining physically capable of meeting and carrying out 
its constitutional responsibilities.
  Moreover, President Donald J. Trump did not submit the written 
certification required to invoke the additional 30-day withdrawal 
period by May 1, 2026. Even assuming the President had validly invoked 
that separate and limited 30-day extension, it would likewise have 
expired on June 1, 2026.
  Without lawful cause or excuse, and despite the Executive's initial 
observation of the reporting requirements under section 4(a) of the War 
Powers Resolution, section 1543(a)(3) of title 50 United States Code, 
through the President's transmission to Congress of a letter 
acknowledging the commencement of the statutory timeline, Secretary 
Hegseth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of United 
States Armed Forces in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran 
after the expiration of every potentially applicable statutory period. 
Secretary Hegseth continued such hostilities after the 60-day period 
expired on May 1, 2026, and after June 1, 2026, the date on which even 
the maximum possible additional 30-day withdrawal period would have 
expired, despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific 
statutory authorization, or extension enacted by Congress.
  Secretary Hegseth further contravened the limited purpose of any such 
additional 30-day withdrawal period by directing United States Armed 
Forces to continue engaging in hostilities against the Islamic Republic 
of Iran 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, and has therefore directed the Department 
of Defense in violation of section 1544(b) of title 50, United States 
Code.
  Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the 
following means:
  One, directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States 
military actions in Iran after the expiration of the 60-day period 
established under section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, 
despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory 
authorization, or an extension enacted by Congress.
  Two, continuing to direct and sustain hostilities in Iran in pursuit 
of additional military objectives during and after the expiration of 
any potentially applicable additional 30-day period, notwithstanding 
that such 30-day period could be used only when required by unavoidable 
military necessity, respecting the safety of the United States Armed 
Forces in the course of bringing about their prompt removal, as 
certified as necessary by the President of the United States, a 
certification never transmitted to Congress by President Donald J. 
Trump pursuant to section 1544(b) of title 50 United States Code.
  Three, failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his 
authority as Secretary of Defense to terminate the unauthorized use of 
United States Armed Forces and promptly withdraw such forces from 
hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  Four, directing the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory 
termination requirement as discretionary, thereby substituting the 
judgment of the executive branch for the constitutional and statutory 
judgment of Congress, and nullifying the express command that the 
unauthorized use of United States Armed Forces shall be terminated.
  Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and 
sustained unlawful orders that, in practice, displaced the 
constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress by permitting the 
executive branch to determine when war may be commenced, how long it 
may be sustained, whether statutory deadlines governing unauthorized 
hostilities must be obeyed, and whether a war may continue after the 
expiration of every period permitted by law.

  In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to 
his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional 
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and 
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
  Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if 
allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly 
incompatible with his duties and the rule of law, Peter Brian Hegseth 
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or 
profit under the United States.
  Article IV: ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties. The 
Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the 
sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, 
including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on 
impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high 
crimes and misdemeanors.
  In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his 
constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Secretary of 
Defense, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend 
the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his 
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, 
especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hegseth has abused 
the powers of the Department of Defense in that:
  Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth 
directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the 
death or injury of more than 200 civilians at the Shajareh Tayyebeh 
Elementary School in Minab, Hormozgan Province, Iran. He did so through 
a scheme or course of conduct that affected the systemic deterioration 
and removal of Department of Defense infrastructure that Congress has 
mandated by law to limit collateral damage to civilians and nonmilitary 
objects during military operations.
  While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also cultivated a warmaking culture 
at the Department of Defense which he boasts as being dismissive of, 
``stupid rules of engagement,'' with preference for ``maximum 
lethality, not tepid legality.''
  Such combination chilled and rendered ineffective components of the 
Department of Defense responsible for preventing, mitigating, and 
responding to civilian harm.

                              {time}  1230

  By directing the Department of Defense in a manner that foreseeably 
dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian objects 
from military objects, Secretary Hegseth thereby effected the murder of 
civilians and abused the trust of men and women under his command by 
requiring them to conduct military operations within a targeted and 
legal-review system that he had deliberately degraded. This undermined 
the integrity and diplomacy of the United States and its Armed Forces. 
He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.
  Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through 
the following means:
  One, Secretary Hegseth willfully disregarded and acted to defeat the 
requirements of section 184 of title 10 United States Code by 
systematically dismantling civilian-protection infrastructure in that:
  A, Secretary Hegseth submitted a legislative proposal to Congress on 
May 29, 2025, requesting a repeal of section 184 of title 10 the United 
States Code, the statutory requirement for civilian-protection systems 
at the Department of Defense, even as Congress had fully funded such 
systems for fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026, and after Congress 
did not enact the requested repeal, Army officials nevertheless 
confirmed that such civilian harm mitigation activities had been 
halted.
  B, Secretary Hegseth immediately stalled and reversed implementation 
of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan and rendered 
ineffective the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, despite it 
being congressionally mandated by section 2082 of the James M. Inhofe 
National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 117-263, and section 936 
of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 
115-232.
  C, Secretary Hegseth eliminated funding for the Army's casualty 
tracking database--the institutional system for recording and verifying 
civilian harm reports--so that should civilians be harmed as a result 
of the United States military action, there would be no functioning 
system within the Department of Defense to review, verify, and report 
on such harm.
  D, Secretary Hegseth willfully refused to ensure that DOD components 
received adequate resources to satisfy the civilian harm mitigation and 
response staff assigned--sorry--requirements, including by removing 
more than 90 percent of civilian harm mitigation and response staff 
assigned to combatant commands.
  E, Secretary Hegseth failed by the end of fiscal year 2025 to satisfy 
any of the 11 objectives or complete 133 actions mandated by Congress 
for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm during armed 
conflict, thereby rendering every such component of the Department of 
Defense's civilian harm prevention apparatus partially or totally 
ineffective by the time the United States military combat operations 
against Iran began in early 2026.
  Two, Secretary Hegseth removed, without reason or cause, the senior-
most judge advocate generals of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, thereby 
undermining independent legal oversight of combat operations and legal 
advice to commanders on the law of armed conflict.
  Three, Secretary Hegseth promulgated the 2026 National Defense 
Strategy with all references to civilian protection omitted, marking a 
deliberate and unprecedented departure from prior defense policy that 
had recognized, in accordance with law, civilian harm mitigation as a 
strategic priority.
  Four, Hegseth, from the outset of his tenure instigated a 
departmental culture hostile to the law of armed conflict and the 
protection of civilians through his public and repeated denigration of 
rules of engagement as ``stupid,'' ``politically correct,'' and 
``overbearing'' in that:
  A, on September 30, 2025, while addressing the largest assembled 
gathering of United States generals and admirals in American history, 
Secretary Hegseth boasted that we, the United States military, ``don't 
fight with stupid rules of engagement.''
  B, upon unlawfully renaming the Department of Defense, the Department 
of War on September 5, 2025, he poetically proclaimed: ``Maximum 
lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically 
correct.''
  C, during his confirmation hearing on January 14, 2025, he told the 
Senate Armed Services Committee he had ``thought very deeply about the 
balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that men and women on 
the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the 
enemy and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way.''
  Five, Secretary Hegseth undermined effective journalistic oversight 
by expelling the traditional Pentagon press corps and imposing 
credentialing rules that restricted journalists from soliciting or 
publishing unapproved materials, thereby weakening independent 
reporting on civilian harm and on matters affecting the welfare and 
safety of United States servicemembers by journalists most familiar 
with the Department of Defense.
  These actions were not isolated, administrative, or rhetorical 
choices. Taken together, they degraded the personnel, institutional 
systems, independent legal review, and civilian protection safeguards 
upon which the Department of Defense relies to verify the current 
status of proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military 
objectives, reassess targets as circumstances change, and prevent or 
mitigate civilian harm.
  The foreseeable consequences of Secretary Hegseth's scheme manifested 
in the United States strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School 
which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic 
failures in the Department of Defense targeting process. The events of 
that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows:
  One, on the morning of February 28, 2026, at approximately 9:45 a.m. 
local time, the United States, in partnership with Israel, launched 
Operation Epic Fury commencing the 2026 Iran war. Within the first hour 
of the U.S.-Israeli offensive into southern Iran, three BGM-109 
Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from the United States Navy warships 
impacted the elementary school between 10:34 and 10:45 a.m. local time.
  Two, because the war was commenced midmorning on a Saturday, the 
first day of the Iranian workweek, students were in attendance at the 
school. Despite an attempted evacuation at the school, at the time of 
the first cruise missile's impact, between 170 and 267 students were 
present in the facility, most of whom were girls between the ages of 7 
and 12 years.
  Three, whereas it is unclear how many casualties were inflicted by 
the first impact, which caused partial destruction of the structure and 
the collapse of its roof, it is reported that the students were then 
sheltered in a prayer room deeper in the facility waiting for rescuers, 
when a second and third missile, in rapid succession, impacted the 
building.
  Four, reported death tolls from the strikes on the elementary school 
indicate that at least 156 civilians were killed, with some reports 
suggesting that civilian death tolls surpassed 170. Those killed 
include at least 120 schoolchildren, 26 teachers, and 7 parents 
attempting to evacuate their children, a schoolbus driver, a pharmacy 
technician from a nearby clinic and the 6-month old unborn child of one 
of the teachers also killed in the attack. An estimated 95 other 
individuals were wounded.
  Under United States military doctrine and the law of armed conflict, 
which Secretary Hegseth is obligated to uphold, the lawfulness of an 
attack does not depend solely on whether civilians were deliberately 
selected for the purpose of harming them. The obligations of 
distinction, target verification, and feasible precaution require 
military decisionmakers to determine, in good faith, that an object is 
a lawful military objective on the basis of information reasonably 
available at the time. A failure to undertake the verification and 
review required by those obligations may render an attack unlawful, a 
failure directly caused by Secretary Hegseth's dismantling of key 
infrastructure designed to prevent such errors. With respect to the 
strike on the elementary school, those institutional failures 
manifested in systemic noncompliance with Department of Defense 
targeting doctrine and legal guidance.
  The strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh 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.

                              {time}  1240

  The elementary school was struck after Secretary Hegseth sought to 
repeal congressionally mandated civilian-protection requirements, 
dismantled the Department's civilian-harm mitigation infrastructure, 
removed the senior-most judge advocates general responsible for 
independent legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the 
National Defense Strategy, and publicly denigrated legal restraints on 
military force as obstacles to maximum lethality. He thereby weakened 
nearly every institutional safeguard designed to minimize civilian 
casualties inflicted by the United States military and then presided 
over a targeting process in which a functioning elementary school was 
struck three times, killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, 
mostly children.
  Such conduct reflects not merely a failure of judgment but an 
extraordinary abuse of powers entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and 
a profound disregard for the civilians his Department was obligated to 
protect and the servicemembers he was entrusted to lead.
  In all of this, Secretary Hegseth willfully and systemically refused 
to comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of 
civilians during the commission of armed conflict, chilled and rendered 
ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, 
and, therefore, foreseeably effected the death and injury of over 200 
civilians, to the manifest injury of the United States.
  Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful 
conduct of United States military operations, the integrity and 
credibility of the United States Armed Forces, and the Constitution if 
allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly 
incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth 
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or 
profit under the United States.
  Article V, Extrajudicial Killings: The Constitution provides that the 
House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and 
that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of 
Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and 
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 
In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in 
violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed--especially with regard to the 
commission of war--has abused the powers of the Department of Defense 
in that:
  Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth 
directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the 
extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels 
alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern 
Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters. He did so through a 
scheme or course of conduct that chilled independent legal review 
within the Department of Defense; constructed a purported legal basis 
for the use of military force without constitutional or statutory 
authorization; and displaced longstanding precedent and codified 
maritime law enforcement practices that are jurisdictionally assigned 
to the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies by substituting in such 
place the use of summary lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, or 
Marine Corps elements. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also oversaw 
orders denying quarter and failing to provide rescue, including 
secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors who were hors de 
combat, and the abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, thereby 
endangering members of our Armed Forces in future military engagements 
by encouraging adversaries to subject American servicemembers to the 
same treatment.
  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. Such a power is foreign to the rule of law, 
repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United 
States and the Western world, and contrary to the United States law and 
customary international law. This conduct undermined the integrity and 
credibility of the United States and its Armed Forces, damaged the 
diplomatic standing of the United States, and injured the interests of 
the Nation.
  Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through 
the following means:
  One, Secretary Hegseth authorized strikes, beginning on September 2, 
2025, without authorization from Congress pursuant to Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, and in the 
absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for 
the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack 
upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed 
Forces, as provided in chapter 33, title 50, United States Code.
  Secretary Hegseth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against 
seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in international 
waters, comprising at least 63 separate attacks--44 in the Eastern 
Pacific Ocean, 17 in the Caribbean Sea, and 2 in unspecified 
locations--which struck 67 vessels and killed at least 221 individuals.
  In doing so, Secretary Hegseth displaced the statutory framework 
established by sections 70503 and 70504 of title 46, United States 
Code, under which Congress expressly treated maritime narcotics 
offenses, including conduct occurring on the high seas, as Federal 
crimes subject to apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an 
appropriate United States district court and, instead, treated such 
offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting.
  Secretary Hegseth disregarded the statutory restrictions in sections 
274 and 275 of title 10, United States Code, governing direct 
participation by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps 
in civilian law enforcement activities, including Federal narcotics 
enforcement, by employing lethal military force against persons 
suspected of drug trafficking absent any congressional enacted 
authorization for the use of military force or other statutory 
authorization for such direct military action.

  Secretary Hegseth disregarded the maritime enforcement framework 
established by sections 102 and 522 of title 14, United States Code, as 
well as section 279 of title 10, United States Code, under which only 
the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure, 
and arrest, and he did so by directing members of the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, or Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in place of the 
law enforcement processes.
  Three, Secretary Hegseth established targeting guidelines for such 
strikes on August 5, 2025, by issuing an execute order directing the 
use of United States military force against persons alleged to be 
members or affiliates of certain designated terrorist organizations as 
follows:
  A, Secretary Hegseth established guidelines that:
  Used designated terrorist organizations as a targeting category, 
notwithstanding that term is not a congressionally created designation 
conferring authority to use military force;
  Did not require positive identification of any targeted person, but 
instead required only reasonable certainty that such person was a 
member or affiliate of a designated terrorist organization, a threshold 
lower than the near-certainty standard established for drone strikes on 
suspected al-Qaida militants during the congressionally authorized 
global war on terror; and
  Did not require the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted 
vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in association with a 
designated terrorist organization.

                              {time}  1250

  Four, Secretary Hegseth, in the course of such strikes, oversaw 
orders resulting in the denial of quarter to and the failure to provide 
timely rescue for, shipwrecked survivors of initial strikes, including, 
on September 2, 2025, during the first strike of the campaign, the 
United States Navy attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons 
between the coast of Venezuela and nearby Caribbean nation of Trinidad 
and Tobago. The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel.
  Approximately 45 minutes later, while two survivors clung to the 
wreckage, a second strike was ordered, killing both survivors.
  In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our Armed 
Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to 
subject American servicemembers to the same treatment.
  On December 30, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three 
vessels, approximately 400 nautical miles southwest of Ocos, Guatemala, 
in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three persons and leaving eight 
others shipwrecked. Although the campaign had been underway for 
approximately 4 months, no recovery assets had been prepositioned to 
rescue survivors. Rescue assets did not arrive until approximately 45 
hours after the strikes, by which time all eight shipwrecked survivors 
had died at sea.
  In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our Armed 
Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to 
subject American servicemembers to the same treatment.
  Five, Secretary Hegseth took actions to preempt, constrain, and 
overcome independent legal objections within the Department of Defense 
concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including: Secretary Hegseth 
removed the senior-most judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and 
Air Force without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably 
chilling the exercise of independent legal judgment by judge advocates 
tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness of combat 
operations and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on 
February 25, 2025 he did not want military lawyers to serve as 
``roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.''
  Secretary Hegseth employed an interagency group of lawyers comprising 
four career officials and four political appointees from the Department 
of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central 
Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel 
to develop a classified memorandum purporting to establish a legal 
basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections to their 
execution, falsely asserting that the United States is engaged in a 
noninternational armed conflict with 24 Latin American Designated 
Terrorist Organizations, thereby attempting to displace the governing 
law enforcement framework, as established in paragraph 2, and 
substitute an armed conflict framework for the conduct of military 
operations against such organizations, despite the absence of 
congressional authorization for such military action, notwithstanding 
that, pursuant to Little v. Barreme, 1804, and Utility Air Regulatory 
Group v. EPA, 2014, an executive branch legal memorandum cannot enlarge 
authority conferred by Congress or legalize conduct otherwise 
unauthorized by statutes.
  The strikes do not constitute hostilities within the meaning of 
chapter 33 of title 50, United States Code, because they do not place 
United States personnel in danger, presumptively on the basis that such 
vessels are incapable of self-defense, a predicate that would likewise 
mean that any military action conducted by drone, or any airstrike 
against a target lacking air defense capabilities, could also not 
constitute hostilities; and the designated terrorist organizations are 
engaged in armed conflict against the security forces of allied 
nations, including Mexico, and such violence is financed through 
cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as 
attacks against cocaine shipments and the deaths of persons aboard 
targeted vessels as collateral damage, a rationale inconsistent with 
the execute order targeting guidelines described in paragraph 3, which 
did not require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel and 
instead authorized targeting based on designated terrorist organization 
membership or affiliation.
  Secretary Hegseth abused the authority and trust vested in him as 
Secretary of Defense not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal 
military force resulting in the summary execution of at least 221 
persons in international waters but also by using his office to compel 
members of the Armed Forces to carry out such operations under false 
legal authorities that he caused to be constructed and imposed on the 
chain of command.
  In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hegseth endangered 
members of the United States Armed Forces in future military 
engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American 
servicemembers to such treatment.
  Secretary Hegseth further endangered United States law enforcement 
personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established 
maritime law enforcement practices of interdiction, search, seizure, 
arrest, and prosecution. By demonstrating that vessels merely suspected 
of narcotics trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed, 
rather than interdicting and arresting, Secretary Hegseth foreseeably 
increased the likelihood that persons aboard such vessels will perceive 
future encounters with United States authorities as threats to their 
lives and respond with lethal force rather than surrender.
  In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons 
unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign but also made lawful 
enforcement of United States narcotics laws at sea more dangerous for 
the Coast Guard and other Federal personnel charged with carrying them 
out.
  In all of this, Secretary Peter Hegseth has acted in a manner 
contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of 
constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law 
and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United 
States of America.

  Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians and the laws of 
war, the integrity of United States diplomacy, and the Constitution if 
allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly 
incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth 
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or 
profit under the United States.
  Article VI: suppressing free speech: The Constitution provides that 
the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment 
and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary 
of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and 
conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
  In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in 
violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of his 
office, abused the powers entrusted to him by retaliating against a 
Member of Congress for constitutionally protected speech and attempting 
to subject a Member of a coordinate branch of government to executive 
branch punishment for the exercise of his legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, in that: On November 18, 2025, Senator Mark Kelly, a 
retired United States Navy captain and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration astronaut, who flew 39 combat missions during the first 
Gulf War, and who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared in his official capacity as a 
Senator in a video addressed to members of the United States Armed 
Forces concerning the unlawful strike campaign against vessels 
suspected of narcotics trafficking in international waters, stating: 
``Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.''
  Despite such a statement being consistent with decisions in United 
States v. Kennan, 1969, and United States v. Calley, 1973, Secretary 
Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to retaliate against and 
intimidate Senator Mark Kelly for such a statement. Secretary Hegseth 
did so despite the fact that Senator Kelly is a sitting United States 
Senator who cannot fulfill his role in representative government if he 
fears executive branch reprisals for expressing his views.
  As the Supreme Court held in Bond v. Floyd, 1966, representative 
government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to 
express their views on issues of policy.

                              {time}  1300

  Members of Congress, moreover, enjoy Speech or Debate immunity under 
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and 
Senator Kelly, as a retired servicemember, is entitled to the full 
breadth of First Amendment protection.
  Using the powers of his office, Secretary Hegseth retaliated against 
and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his 
statement through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere 
with Congress' constitutional authority to oversee the executive 
branch, grossly expand Article II power at the expense of both the 
legislative and judicial branches of government, and establish a 
precedent that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired 
United States servicemembers and inflict irreparable harm upon their 
First Amendment freedoms.
  Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through 
the following means:
  On November 24, 2025, the Department of Defense, through a social 
media post on X, threatened that Senator Mark Kelly could be recalled 
to Active Duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures 
for his statement.
  On November 25, 2025, Secretary Hegseth directed the Secretary of the 
Navy to review Senator Kelly.
  On January 5, 2026, Secretary Hegseth issued a Secretarial Letter of 
Censure against Senator Kelly for: saying, you can refuse illegal 
orders; saying he would ``always defend the Constitution''; questioning 
the legality of military operations as a member of the Senate Armed 
Services and Intelligence Committees; criticizing military leadership, 
Hegseth, for surrounding themselves, himself, with ``yes men''; and 
accusing Secretary Hegseth of war crimes.
  In the letter of censure, Secretary Hegseth also threatened Senator 
Kelly with criminal prosecution or further administrative action, 
including the reduction of Senator Kelly's retired military grade 
should the Senator continue to question the legality of military 
operations or criticize Secretary Hegseth.
  In response to a January 12, 2026, complaint filed by Senator Mark 
Kelly against Secretary Hegseth for retaliating against and 
intimidating the Senator for his First Amendment-protected speech, 
Secretary Hegseth filed a memorandum of opposition to Senator Kelly's 
motion for preliminary injunction, egregiously asserting that: A, 
Senator Kelly, as retired naval officer, has diminished First Amendment 
protections; B, Department of Defense actions against Senator Kelly's 
constitutional rights due to his statements relating to military 
affairs, and his being a retired naval officer, constitute 
nonjusticiable military personnel decisions; C, Secretary Hegseth's 
opinions supersede the court's jurisdiction on determining whether the 
government could censure, threaten, and financially punish Senator 
Kelly because of his speech; and D, Senator Kelly is required to 
exhaust military administrative remedies before seeking relief in an 
Article III court, thereby seeking to place the adjudication of Senator 
Kelly's constitutional rights within military processes controlled by 
the executive branch.
  Thus, in addition to abusing the powers of the Office of Secretary of 
Defense for politically motivated reprisal against Senator Kelly for 
the Senator's criticism of conduct implicating potential war crimes, 
Secretary Hegseth grossly violated, or sought to violate, the 
separation of powers by attempting to subordinate both the legislative 
and judicial branches, in matters concerning constitutional rights, to 
the authority of the Department of Defense. In the same effort, 
Secretary Hegseth sought, without precedent, to extend to retired 
servicemembers the diminished First Amendment protections applicable to 
Active-Duty servicemembers under Parker v. Levy, 1974, including 
retired servicemembers serving in Congress and exercising 
constitutional oversight over the military.
  He further asserted, in substance, that the military, rather than 
Article III courts, possesses supremacy to determine the constitutional 
rights of civilians and to adjudicate whether its own actions conform 
to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, at minimum with 
respect to the speech of retired servicemembers, such position being in 
flagrant conflict with Marbury v. Madison, 1803, which holds that it is 
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say 
what the law is, not the military.
  The result of such effort, had Secretary Hegseth been successful, 
would have subjected the speech and congressional oversight activities 
of nearly 20 percent of the current Congress, and whatever proportion 
of future Congresses may consist of retired servicemembers, as well as 
the speech of millions of other retired servicemembers, to the will and 
discretion of the Department of Defense, without any immediate avenue 
of recourse outside the department to vindicate their constitutional 
rights. Such a result would constitute one of the most extraordinary 
expansions of executive branch power in the history of the United 
States.
  In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department 
of Defense by retaliating against, and attempting to intimidate, a 
sitting United States Senator through threats of punishment for speech 
protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in 
an effort to deter that Senator from fulfilling his constitutional role 
in overseeing the executive branch.
  In doing so, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense 
to chill a core function of the legislative branch, encroach upon the 
constitutional role of the judicial branch by seeking to insulate such 
retaliation from meaningful judicial review, and, through the precedent 
he sought to establish, place the First Amendment rights of millions of 
United States veterans at risk of irreparable harm.
  Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the 
separation of powers if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a 
manner grossly incompatible with his duties, the rule of law, and the 
constitutional liberties entrusted to his protection.

  Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from 
office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
trust, or profit under the United States.
  Article VII: kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader: The 
Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the 
sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, 
including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on 
impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high 
crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct of the Office of Secretary of 
Defense, and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully 
execute the Office of Secretary of Defense and, to the best of his 
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that 
the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the commission of 
war, Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of 
Defense, in that:
  Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth 
directed the Department of Defense to carry out an unprecedented 
military operation--code-named Absolute Resolve--to capture and kidnap 
President Nicolas Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela, and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuela, 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. In doing so, he gambled the lives of Army, 
Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel in order to facilitate the 
illegal taking of national oil.
  To wit, immediately following such attack, Secretary Hegseth appeared 
alongside President Donald J. Trump, during which the President 
announced, in reference to Venezuela, we are going to run the country 
until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transaction. 
So we don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in, and 
we have the same situation that we had. We are going to run it 
essentially, and ``we are going to have our very large United States 
oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in . . . and start 
making money . . . and we are ready to stage a second and much larger 
attack if we need to do so.'' Thus, revealing the motives behind the 
forcible removal of President Maduro, which extended far beyond the 
narcotics law enforcement rationale on which the operation was falsely 
predicated.

                              {time}  1310

  On January 3, 2026, Secretary Hegseth directed the United States 
Armed Forces into hostilities in and around Caracas, Venezuela, 
employing more than 200 United States Special Operations personnel on 
the ground and more than 150 aircraft and drones, including fighter 
aircraft, bombers, armed helicopters, and electronic warfare aircraft, 
supported by substantial naval force that included the Iwo Jima 
Amphibious Ready Group and the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, 
which together, penetrated Venezuelan territory, suppressed and 
destroyed Venezuelan air defenses, struck multiple targets in the 
Caracas area, inserted an armed ground force into Caracas to seize 
Maduro, successfully kidnapped Maduro, killed at least 83 people, 
including several civilians, and caused 7 American casualties. In doing 
so:
  Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders effecting the removal of 
the President of a sovereign nation, placed boots on the ground, 
conducted preparatory bombardments, inflicted substantial casualties, 
and subsequently caused regime change, each of which constitutes an act 
of war.
  Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders violating Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution by:
  Ordering United States Armed Forces to commit acts of war against 
Venezuela without a declaration of war by Congress against such nation; 
and
  Making rules concerning captures on land, a power specifically vested 
in Congress, where Congress had made no rules authorizing or otherwise 
applicable to such operation; and
  Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of 
section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of 
title 50, United States Code, by entering United States Armed Forces 
into hostilities in Venezuela on January 3, 2026, without a declaration 
of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency 
created by attack upon the United States, its territories or 
possessions, or its Armed Forces.
  Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly directed United 
States Armed Forces into hostilities against a sovereign nation, 
without clear constitutional or specific statutory authority, employing 
military force of a nature and magnitude rising to the level of 
constitutional war. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth usurped Congress' 
congressional authority over war and transformed the Department of 
Defense into an instrument for objectives extending far beyond the 
apprehension of Nicolas Maduro for purposes of narcotics law 
enforcement, including regime change and the acquisition of foreign 
oil.
  In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department 
of Defense, violated the laws and treaty obligations of the United 
States, and subordinated the constitutional allocation of war powers to 
executive objectives neither authorized nor approved by Congress.
  Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the 
well-being of United States military personnel if allowed to remain in 
office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties 
and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and 
trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any 
office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
  Article VIII: unlawful war in Yemen: The Constitution provides that 
the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment 
and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary 
of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and 
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 
In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in 
violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed--especially with regard to the 
commission of war--has abused the powers of the Department of Defense 
in that:
  Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth 
directed the Department of Defense in a manner leading to the deaths of 
an estimated 224 civilians, as well as approximately 500 to 600 Houthi 
fighters, through the initiation and direction of Operation Rough 
Rider. The operation comprised more than 1,100 strikes against targets 
in Yemen over approximately 52 days. In less than 8 weeks, there were 
nearly as many civilian deaths in Yemen as the United States military 
actions had caused in that country during the preceding 23 years. 
Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed those hostilities in the 
absence of any of the predicates required in section 2(c) of the War 
Powers Resolution of 1973 for the President to introduce United States 
Armed Forces into hostilities. Moreover, Secretary Hegseth acknowledged 
the absence of any imminent threat to the United States, further 
undermining any assertion Article II authority to initiate such 
hostilities without congressional authorization.
  Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed Operation Rough Rider 
without congressional authority pursuant to Article I, Section 8, 
Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, or statutory 
authorization, in that:
  Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of 
section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of 
title 50, United States Code, by entering and sustaining United States 
Navy and Air Force personnel into hostilities in Yemen between March 15 
and May 6, 2025, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory 
authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the 
United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.
  Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of 
section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1543(a) of 
title 50, United States Code, by continuing to direct United States 
Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen after March 17, 2025, despite 
the President of the United States having failed to notify Congress of 
such hostilities within 48 hours of their commencement, as required by 
section 4(a), and notwithstanding that the President did not transmit 
such a report to Congress until March 28, 2025, thereby further 
undermining any possible Article II authority for the continued 
hostilities, especially during such 13-day period.

  Outside of the requirements to engage in hostilities pursuant to the 
War Powers Resolution of 1973, Secretary Hegseth directed Operation 
Rough Rider in the absence of any imminent threat requiring military 
action without prior congressional authorization, as evidenced by a 
leaked Signal chat involving Secretary Hegseth, concerning the 
potential execution of Operation Rough Rider, in which:
  Several senior United States Government officials, including 
Secretary Hegseth, each possessing unfettered access to military and 
intelligence information, advised there was no immediate need to enter 
the United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen, thereby 
asserting there was no imminent threat to the United States, its 
possessions or territories, or its Armed Forces, including:
  Vice President JD Vance stating: ``There is a strong argument for 
delaying a month'';
  Then-Acting Chief of Staff to the National Security Advisor Joe Kent 
stating: ``There is nothing time sensitive driving this timeline. We 
will have the exact same options in a month'';
  Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe stating: ``A 
delay would not negatively impact us and additional time would be used 
to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership'';
  Addressing the timing of Operation Rough Rider, Secretary Hegseth 
himself stated: ``We can easily pause''; and
  Addressing the Vice President's concerns regarding Operation Rough 
Rider's immediate commencement, Secretary Hegseth stated: ``VP, I 
understand your concerns . . . two immediate risks on waiting: One, 
this leaks and we look indecisive; two, Israel takes action first--or 
Gaza ceasefire falls apart''--and we don't get to start this war on our 
terms; I am sorry--``and we don't get to start this on our own terms. . 
. . This is not about the Houthis'' reestablish--``reestablishing 
deterrence which Biden cratered.''

                              {time}  1320

  Thus, Secretary Hegseth knew there was no imminent threat to the 
United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, as, 
had such a threat existed, there would have been no basis for him to 
state that: ``We can easily pause.'' Moreover, the only immediate risks 
identified by Secretary Hegseth concerned media optics and Israeli 
affairs rather than the direct affairs of the United States of America, 
the Nation to which his oath is sworn.
  In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers entrusted to him 
as Secretary of Defense by subordinating the constitutional limits on 
the use of military force and the laws governing the conduct of 
hostilities to his own policy objectives, notwithstanding his knowledge 
that no imminent threat to the United States existed, and demonstrated 
a profound disregard for civilian life, the rule of law, the 
constitutional authority of Congress, and his duty to ensure the lawful 
conduct of the United States Armed Forces.
  Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful 
conduct of United States military operations, the integrity and 
credibility of the United States Armed Forces, and the Constitution if 
allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly 
incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth 
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or 
profit under the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Onder). Under rule IX, a resolution 
offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or 
the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the House has 
immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
  Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the 
gentleman from Kentucky will appear in the Record at this point.
  The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution 
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at 
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.

                          ____________________