Veterans’ Groups Seek Hegseth Impeachment Even if He Resigns

Veterans and retired military officers want Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth impeached even if he resigns or is fired, arguing that removing him would leave unresolved allegations involving the Iran war, lethal strikes at sea, and the treatment of service members.

Army veteran Kristofer Goldsmith, founder of Veterans Fighting Fascism, said the Unite for Veterans Coalition wants Hegseth impeached, convicted and disqualified from future federal office. The coalition reiterated that position Friday, saying resignation should not end congressional proceedings.

The group is organizing a Veterans Day demonstration in Washington on Nov. 11. Its planned Capitol Lawn location and 1 p.m. start remain subject to permit approval.

Their demands come after the House did not move forward Tuesday to impeach Hegseth in what remains a GOP majority, though the tide could shift come January in a reversed chamber.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries endorsed impeachment Sunday, Nov. 8, declaring himself a “hard yes” on the resolution initially proposed by outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

The Laws Behind the Impeachment Articles

Massie first outlined eight impeachment articles in September. Three concern the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Others allege failures to minimize civilian casualties, unlawful strikes against suspected drug traffickers, retaliation against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and misconduct involving military operations in Venezuela and Yemen.

The War Powers Resolution, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548, establishes reporting requirements and limits on military hostilities undertaken without congressional authorization.

Section 1544(b) generally requires the president to terminate unauthorized hostilities within 60 days after submitting the required report to Congress, or when that report should have been submitted.

An additional 30 days may be available for withdrawing forces if the president provides the required certification. Massie’s first charge argues that continued operations against Iran, where U.S.-Israeli strikes began Feb. 28, violated those deadlines.

His second charge, under Section 5(c), alleges that Hegseth disregarded a June resolution directing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iran. Both chambers approved it, but the resolution was never presented to Trump for signature or veto. That creates a constitutional obstacle.

In INS v. Chadha (1983), a case involving Congress’ attempt to overturn an immigration decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress generally cannot impose legally binding requirements on the executive branch without following the constitutional lawmaking process, including presenting legislation to the president.

The ruling affects Congress’ authority to compel troop withdrawals through concurrent resolutions, weakening Massie’s second charge.

The third charge, under Section 5(b), alleges that Hegseth continued military operations after the law’s 60-day deadline expired. The statute permits an additional 30 days only when the president certifies that military necessity requires more time to withdraw troops safely.

Massie argues that Hegseth continued the Iran campaign beyond both periods, without congressional authorization or a qualifying extension.

The War Powers Resolution imposes no specific criminal penalties for violations, but violating it can constitute grounds for impeachment. Massie argues that Hegseth’s involvement in unauthorized military operations amounts to an abuse of power warranting impeachment, which does not require proof of a criminal offense.

When Military Strikes Could Become Criminal Cases

Retired Rear Adm. Michael Smith, founder of National Security Leaders for America, has called the Caribbean strikes “war crimes” and urged Congress to investigate them.

A September 2025 operation included a second attack that killed survivors clinging to wreckage, prompting questions about whether those people were protected from attack and who authorized the strike.

Under the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2441, qualifying violations of the laws of armed conflict can result in federal prosecution. These include the intentional killing of people taking no active part in hostilities.

Prosecutors would have to establish that the conduct met the statute’s requirements, including the necessary connection to an armed conflict.

Legal experts have disputed whether the Caribbean operations qualify as armed conflict at all. If they do not, the War Crimes Act may be the wrong legal framework. Without an armed conflict, the War Crimes Act generally would not apply, but unlawful killings could still be prosecuted as murder.

The federal murder statute can apply on the high seas under 18 U.S.C. § 7, depending on the location and vessels involved. Military personnel could also face prosecution under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Hegseth, as a civilian Cabinet secretary, is not subject to military courts. 18 U.S.C. § 2 allows prosecution of someone who intentionally aids, commands or causes a federal crime without personally carrying it out.

The secretary maintains the strikes were lawful and approved by military attorneys. Such reviews do not conclusively establish legality, although criminal charges would require evidence of an underlying offense and his involvement.

Veterans, Military Families and Oversight

Concerns extend beyond military operations. In February, a federal judge blocked Hegseth’s attempt to punish Sen. Kelly, a retired Navy captain, for joining a video reminding troops to refuse unlawful orders.

The preliminary injunction found substantial First Amendment concerns but did not constitute a final determination of Hegseth’s liability.

The Pentagon also faces questions about the treatment of Navy families evacuated from Bahrain during the Iran conflict.

Thirty Democratic lawmakers challenged the potential expiration of temporary financial assistance and requested answers by Nov. 13.

Other veterans have publicly joined the impeachment effort. Retired Army Maj. Richard Ojeda, newly elected to represent a North Carolina congressional district, said Hegseth should face impeachment, citing the ongoing Iran war.

Why Resignation Would Not Necessarily End Impeachment

Under the Constitution, the impeachment process begins with a simple majority vote in the House, followed by a Senate trial requiring a two-thirds vote of senators present for conviction.

The Senate can then vote separately, by simple majority, to disqualify the official from holding future federal office. Impeachment cannot impose prison sentences or criminal fines.

Resignation has not always prevented impeachment proceedings. In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap resigned minutes before the House voted to impeach him over corruption allegations. The House proceeded anyway, and the Senate agreed to try him despite his departure.

Although a majority of senators voted to convict, the charges fell short of the required two-thirds majority, resulting in his acquittal. The Belknap case established a precedent for trying former officials, although the constitutionality of doing so remains disputed.

Hegseth has rejected the allegations, characterizing impeachment as politically motivated. President Donald Trump continues to support him, while chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell maintains that the department’s operations have followed the law.

The veterans’ coalition wants Congress to pursue impeachment regardless of whether Hegseth remains in office, potentially preventing him from holding another federal position.

Criminal prosecution would require a separate investigation and evidence of an applicable offense. His resignation could end his tenure at the Pentagon without resolving either avenue of accountability.