House Republicans turn aside an effort to impeach Pete Hegseth

[0:00] of Defense, Peter Bryan Hexeth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution [0:05] of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that [0:10] the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has [0:17] abused the powers of the Department of Defense, and that the Declare War Clause of the United [0:23] States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, vest in Congress the exclusive initiatory [0:29] powers of war, while the Military, Administrative, and Clemency Clause of the United States Constitution, [0:36] Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, establishes the President as the Commander-in-Chief of [0:42] Armed Forces, and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress. [0:50] In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which the President may introduce United [0:57] States Armed Forces into hostilities, absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United [1:03] States enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public [1:11] Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. [1:17] Peter Bryan Hexeth, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense, has executed unlawful orders in contravention [1:24] of Section 2, C., of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1541, C., of Title 50 United States [1:32] Code. Section 2, C., provides that the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to [1:39] introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in [1:46] hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to, one, a declaration [1:54] of war, two, specific statutory authorization, or three, a national emergency created by [2:01] attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces. The War Powers [2:09] Resolution further expressly provides that nothing contained therein shall be construed as gaining any [2:15] authority to the President to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities which the President [2:22] would not otherwise possess in the absence of a resolution. Accordingly, the reporting and [2:28] termination procedures subsequently established by the resolution do not themselves constitute [2:35] affirmative statutory authorization to commence hostilities. Rather, the introduction of the United [2:41] States Armed Forces into hostilities must rest upon one of the authorities or circumstances identified [2:48] in Section 2, C., in order for the conflict to be considered lawful. With respect to United States [2:55] Armed Forces being entered into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, on February 28, 2026, [3:04] Secretary Hegseth directed and caused United States Armed Forces to be introduced into hostilities [3:10] against the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that, one, Congress had not declared war against the [3:18] Islamic Republic of Iran, two, Congress had not enacted any specific statutory authorization for the [3:25] introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, [3:31] and three, no national emergency had been created by an attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the [3:38] United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces. Furthermore, no imminent attack upon the [3:46] United States as territory or possessions or its armed forces existed existed, as affirmed in the [3:52] March 17, 2026 resignation letter of Joe Kemp, then director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in which he stated, [4:02] I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. [4:10] The introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, [4:16] therefore satisfied none of the circumstances expressly identified in Section IIc of the War Powers [4:22] Resolution, and was undertaken from its inception without congressional authorization or independent [4:29] Article II authority, thereby rendering both the initial introduction of the United States Armed Forces into [4:36] hostilities, and all subsequent actions taken thereafter unlawful. Secretary Hegseth, nevertheless, [4:44] knowingly executed and implemented the order to commence such hostilities, employing the powers, [4:51] personnel, weapons, and resources of the Department of Defense to initiate military action against [4:57] another sovereign nation in violation of Section 1541 of Title 50 United States Code. Secretary Hegseth abused the [5:06] powers of his high office through the following means. One, executing an unlawful order to commence [5:14] hostilities despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national [5:23] emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territory or possessions, or its armed forces. Two, [5:31] continuing to employ the personnel and resources of the Department of Defense in those hostilities [5:37] after their unlawful initiation, and in the continued absence of any subsequent declaration of war, or [5:44] specific statutory authorization by Congress. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and [5:52] implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation, notwithstanding the absence of congressional [5:58] authorization, an attack upon the United States giving rise to the national emergency contemplated by law or [6:05] an imminent threat requiring immediate defensive action, thereby substituting unlawful executive action for the [6:16] constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary [6:26] to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, [6:35] and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, [6:44] has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, [6:49] and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment, [6:59] and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, [7:05] or profit under the United States. Article II, Waging War and Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [7:14] Section 5C. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of [7:21] impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be [7:28] removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treasory, bribery, or other high crimes and [7:34] misdemeanors, in his conduct while Secretary of Defense Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to [7:41] support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to [7:47] take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has abused the [7:55] powers of the Department of Defense, and that the Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, [8:03] Section 8, Clause 11, vest in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the Military, Administrative, [8:11] and Clemency Clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, [8:18] establishes the President as the Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces, and vest in him operational control over wars lawfully [8:26] authorized by Congress. In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which the [8:33] President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, absent congressional authorization, [8:39] the 93rd Congress of the United States of America enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, [8:46] the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. [8:56] Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so in contravention of Section 5C [9:03] of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1544C of Title 50 United States Code. Section 5C of the War Powers [9:12] Resolution of 1973 provides that at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities [9:21] outside the territory of the United States outside the territory of the United States, its possessions, [9:25] and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces [9:33] shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution. [9:40] With respect to United States Armed Forces being engaged in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, [9:47] pursuant to Section 5C, the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed by the yeas and nays to a [9:55] concurrent resolution directing the President to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized [10:00] hostilities in Iran, House Concurrent Resolution 86 of the 119th Congress. The House agreed to this [10:08] concurrent resolution on June 3rd, 2026, and the Senate agreed to it on June 23rd, 2026, marking the first [10:17] successful passage of such a legislative vehicle by both chambers of Congress in the history of the [10:24] United States of America. In response and without lawful cause or excuse, Secretary Hegseth continued [10:32] to direct the United States Armed Forces into hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 26, [10:40] 2026, and continues to do so in violation of Section 1544C of Title 50 United States Code, [10:48] 2. Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means. [10:54] 1. Directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after both [11:02] chambers of Congress agreed to House Concurrent Resolution 86, thereby disregarding Congress's [11:09] express and lawful direction that United States Armed Forces be removed from such hostilities. [11:15] 2. Failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to [11:23] withdraw United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Iran. 3. Directing the Department of Defense to [11:30] ignore the duly agreed concurrent resolution, thereby substituting the judgment of the Executive Branch for [11:37] the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying Congress's exercise of its war powers. [11:44] 3. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders [11:50] that treated the Executive Branch as possessing authority to determine when war may be commenced, [11:56] how long it may be sustained, and whether Congress's direction to terminate hostilities must be obeyed. [12:03] 3. By implementing those orders, he effectuated and practiced the unilateral continuation of military [12:12] operations against Iran, despite Congress's exclusive constitutional authority to declare war, [12:19] and despite Congress's formal action directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities. [12:26] 4. This abusive office frustrated Congress's ability to exercise its most solemn constitutional responsibility, [12:33] 5. Enabled the continuation of an unlawful war, and ignored and thus nullified the fundamental safeguard [12:41] designed to prevent United States Armed Forces from being used at the will of the Executive alone. [12:49] 5. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense [12:55] and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, [13:03] 6. and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, [13:10] 6. by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to [13:16] remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. [13:22] 6. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warns impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to [13:29] hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [13:34] 6. Article 3. Waging War and Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 5b. [13:44] 7. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of [13:49] impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [13:54] 7. shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high [14:02] crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct, while Secretary of Defense Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of [14:08] his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his [14:14] constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the [14:20] Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense, and that the Declare War [14:29] Clause of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, vest in Congress the exclusive [14:35] initiatory powers of war, while the Military, Administrative, and Clemency Clause of the United [14:41] States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, establishes the President as the Commander-in-Chief of [14:48] the Armed Forces, and vest in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress. [14:55] In an effort to statutory delineate the circumstances under which the President may introduce the United [15:02] States Armed Forces into hostilities absent Congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of [15:09] the United States enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [15:17] Public Law 93148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. [15:23] Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so in contravention of Section [15:29] 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1544B of Title 50, United States Code. [15:38] Section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that within 60 calendar days, [15:45] after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted to Congress by the President of the [15:51] United States, upon the Executive introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into [15:58] situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, [16:05] whichever is earlier, the Executive shall terminate any use of the United States Armed Forces unless the [16:12] Congress, one, has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United [16:20] States Armed Forces, two, has extended by law such 60-day period, or three, is physically unable to meet as [16:29] the result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 5B further provides that, absent a former [16:36] Congressional declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for use of military force, or an [16:44] extensive extension of the 60-day period enacted into law during that period, such 60-day period shall be [16:52] extended for not more than an additional 30 days if the President determines and certifies to Congress in [16:59] writing that unavoidable military necessary respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the [17:09] continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. [17:18] With respect to United States Armed Forces being entered into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran [17:25] and indicating reliance on the fealty to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 as legal justification for [17:33] entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities with Iran without the initiatory authority of Congress, [17:41] President Donald J. Trump transmitted on March 2, 2026, a letter informing Congress of action taken [17:48] consistent with the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1543 A.3, [17:58] Public Law 93-148, Section 4A, 87 Stat 555, and 50 U.S.C. 1543 B, Public Law 93-148, Section 4B, 87 Stat 555, [18:15] concerning hostilities that had commenced in Iran on February 28, 2026. In the 60-day period following [18:23] said transmission, Congress did not enact and still has not enacted any declaration or specific [18:30] statutory authorization for use of United States Armed Forces in hostilities against Iran or extended [18:37] the applicable 60-day period by law despite remaining physically capable of meeting and carrying out its [18:44] constitutional responsibilities. Moreover, President Donald J. Trump did not submit the written [18:51] certification required to invoke the additional 30-day withdrawal period by May 1, 2026. Even assuming [18:58] the President had validly invoked the separate and limited 30-day extension, it would likewise have [19:07] expired on June 1, 2026. Without lawful cause or excuse and despite the Executive's initial observance [19:16] of the reporting requirements under Section 4A of the War Powers Resolution Section 1543 A.3 of Title 50 [19:24] United States Code, through the President's transmission to Congress of a letter acknowledging the [19:29] commencement of the statutory timeline, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of the [19:37] United States Armed Forces and hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran after the expiration of every [19:45] potentially applicable statutory period. Secretary Hegseth continued such hostilities after the 60-day period [19:56] expired on May 1, 2026 and after June 1, 2026, the date on which even the maximum possible additional 30-day [20:05] withdrawal period would have expired, despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory [20:12] authorization, or extension enacted by Congress. Secretary Hegseth further contravened the limited [20:20] purpose of any such additional 30-day withdrawal period by directing United States Armed Forces to [20:25] continue engaging in hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner calculated not to [20:33] terminate the unauthorized use of such forces and bring about their prompt removal, but rather to [20:39] continue prosecuting the war to pursue additional military objectives not authorized by Congress and [20:48] has therefore directed the Department of Defense in violation of Section 1544 B of Title 50 United States [20:54] Code. Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means. [21:00] 1. Directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after the [21:08] expiration of the 60-day period established under Section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [21:16] despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an extension enacted by [21:23] Congress. 2. Continuing to direct and sustain hostilities in Iran in the pursuit [21:31] of additional military objectives during and after the expiration of any potentially applicable additional 30-day [21:39] period, notwithstanding such 30-day period could be used only when required by unavoidable military [21:47] necessity respecting the safety of the United States Armed Forces and the course of bringing about their [21:56] proper removal as certified as necessary by the President of the United States, a certification never [22:02] transmitted to Congress by President Donald J. Trump pursuant to Section 1544 B of Title 50 United States [22:10] Code. 3. Failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to [22:18] terminate the unauthorized use of United States Armed Forces and promptly withdraw such forces from [22:24] hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4. Directing the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory [22:33] termination requirement as discretionary, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the [22:39] constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress, and nullifying the express command that the unauthorized use of [22:48] United States Armed Forces shall be terminated. 5. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly [22:57] executed and sustained unlawful orders that, in practice, displace the constitutional and statutory [23:04] judgment of Congress by permitting the executive branch to determine when war may be commenced, [23:11] how long it may be sustained, whether statutory deadlines governing unauthorized hostilities must be [23:17] obeyed, and whether a war may continue after the expiration of every period permitted by law. In all [23:25] of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and [23:31] subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the [23:39] manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, [23:45] by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain [23:51] in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. [23:57] Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to [24:04] hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article IV, ignoring laws that [24:12] minimize civilian casualties. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall [24:19] have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary [24:25] of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, [24:32] or other high crimes and misdemeanors in his conduct as Secretary of Defense and in violation of [24:38] his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of Defense, and to the best of [24:45] his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of [24:51] his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the [24:57] Commission of War. Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that, [25:03] using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense [25:12] in a manner that resulted in the death or injury of more than 200 civilians at the Shijara Tahara [25:21] Elementary School in Minab, Hormansgan Province, Iran. He did so through a scheme of course of conduct [25:31] that affected the systemic deterioration and removal of the Department of Defense infrastructure [25:36] that Congress has mandated by law to limit collateral damage to civilians and non-military objects [25:43] during military operations. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also cultivated a war-making culture [25:50] at the Department of Defense, which he boasts as being dismissive of stupid rules of engagement, [25:57] with preference for maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Such combination chilled and rendered [26:05] ineffective components of the Department of Defense responsible for preventing, mitigating, [26:11] and responding to civilian harm. By directing the Department of Defense in a manner that foreseeably [26:17] dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, Secretary Hegseth [26:25] thereby effected the murder of civilians and abused the trust of the men and women under his command [26:32] by requiring them to conduct military operations within a targeting and legal review system that he [26:39] had deliberately degraded. This undermined the integrity and diplomacy of the United States and its [26:46] armed forces. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation. Secretary Hegseth engaged in this [26:53] scheme of course of conduct through the following means. One, Secretary Hegseth willfully disregarded and [27:03] acted to defeat the requirements of Section 184 of Title 10, United States Code, by systematically [27:11] dismantling civilian protection infrastructure in that a Secretary Hegseth submitted a legislative proposal to [27:19] Congress on May 29, 2025, requesting a repeal of Section 184 of Title 10, United States Code, the statutory requirement for civilian protection systems at the Department of Defense, [27:33] even as Congress had fully funded such systems for FY2025 and FY2026. And after Congress did not enact the requested repeal, Army officials nevertheless confirmed that such [27:49] civilian harm mitigation activities have been halted. B. Secretary Hegseth intentionally stalled and reversed implementation of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, [28:01] CHMR-AP, and rendered ineffective the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, CPCOE, despite it being [28:12] congressionally mandated by Section 1082 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act, [28:19] Public Law 117-263, and Section 936 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 115-232. [28:31] C. Secretary Hegseth eliminated funding for the Army's Casualty Tracking Database, the Institutional System [28:38] for Recording and Verifying Civilian Harm Reports, so that should civilians be harmed as a result of [28:45] United States military action, there would be no functioning system within the Department of Defense to [28:51] review, verify, and report on such harm. D. Secretary Hegseth willfully refused to ensure that DOD components [29:00] receive adequate resources to satisfy CHMR requirements, including by removing more than 90 percent of [29:08] civilian harm mitigation and response staff assigned to combatant commands. E. Secretary Hegseth failed [29:17] by the end of fiscal year 2025 to satisfy any of the 11 objectives or complete 133 actions mandated by [29:27] Congress for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm during armed conflict, thereby rendering every [29:34] such component of the Department of Defense's civilian harm prevention apparatus partially or totally [29:40] ineffective by the time United States military combat operations against Iran began in early 2026. [29:48] E. Secretary Hegseth removed, without reason or cause, the senior-most Judge Advocates General of the Army, [29:56] Navy, and Air Force, thereby undermining independent legal oversight of the combat operations and legal advice [30:04] to commanders on the law of armed conflict. E. Secretary Hegseth promulgated the 2026 National Defense [30:13] Strategy with all references to civilian protection omitted, marking a deliberate and unprecedented [30:21] departure from the prior defense policy that had recognized, in accordance with law, civilian harm [30:27] mitigation as a strategic priority. E. Secretary Hegseth, from the outset of his tenure, [30:34] E. Secretary Hegseth instigated a departmental culture hostile to the law of armed conflict and the [30:40] protection of civilians through his public and repeated degeneration of rules of engagement as stupid, [30:47] politically correct, and overbearing in that A. On September 30, 2025, while addressing the largest [30:55] assembly gathering of United States generals and admirals in American history, Secretary Hegseth boasted that we, [31:02] the United States military, don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. B. Upon unlawfully renaming the [31:10] Department of Defense the Department of War on September 5, 2025, he poetically proclaimed, [31:18] maximum lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not politically correct. C. During his confirmation [31:28] hearing on January 14, 2025, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he had thought very deeply about [31:35] the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the [31:42] opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy, and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way. [31:49] 5. Secretary Hegseth undermined effective journalistic oversight by expelling the traditional Pentagon [31:56] press corps and imposing credentialing rules that restricted journalists from soliciting or publishing [32:03] unapproved materials, thereby weakening independent reporting on civilian harm and on matters affecting [32:10] the welfare and safety of the United States service members by journalists most familiar with the [32:16] Department of Defense. These actions were not isolated administrative or rhetorical choices. Taken [32:24] together, they degraded the personnel, institutional systems, independent legal review, and civilian [32:30] protection safeguards upon which the Department of Defense relies to verify the current status of [32:37] proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, reassess targets, [32:44] as circumstances change and prevent or mitigate civilian harm. The foreseeable consequences of Secretary [32:51] Hegseth's scheme manifested in the United States strike on the Shijara Tahara Bay Elementary School, [32:59] which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic failures in the Department of Defense [33:07] targeting process. The events of that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows. [33:13] 1. On the morning of February 28, 2026, at approximately 9.45 a.m. local time, the United States, [33:28] in partnership with Israel, launched Operation Epic Fury, commencing the 2026 Iran War. Within the first [33:36] hour of the U.S.-Israel offensive into southern Iran, three BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from United States [33:46] Navy warships impacted the elementary school between 1023 and 1045 a.m. local time, too. Because the war was [33:57] commenced mid-morning on a Saturday, the first day of the Iranian working week, students were in attendance at the [34:04] school. Despite an attempted evacuation of the school, at the time of the first cruise missiles impact, between [34:11] 170 and 264 students were present in the facility, most of whom were girls between the ages of seven [34:19] and twelve years. Three, whereas it is unclear how many casualties were inflicted by the first impact, [34:28] which caused a partial destruction of the structure and the collapse of its roof, it is reported that the [34:34] students were then sheltered in a prayer room deeper in the facility, waiting for rescuers, when a second [34:40] and third missile in rapid succession impacted the building. Four, reported death tolls from the strikes [34:47] on the elementary school indicate that at least 156 civilians were killed, with some reports suggesting [34:54] the civilian death toll surpassed 170. Those killed included at least 120 school children, 26 teachers, [35:03] seven parents attempting to evacuate their children, and a school bus driver, a pharmacy technician from [35:10] a nearby clinic, and the six-month-old unborn child of one of the teachers also killed in the attack. [35:17] An estimated 95 other individuals were wounded. Under United States military doctrine and the law of armed [35:27] conflict, which Secretary Hexeth is obligated to uphold, the lawfulness of an attack does not depend [35:33] solely upon whether civilians were deliberately selected for the purpose of harming them. The [35:39] obligations of distinction, target verification, and feasible precaution require military decision [35:45] makers to determine in good faith that an object is a lawful military objective on the basis of [35:52] information reasonably available at the time. A failure to undertake the verification and review required [35:59] by those obligations may render an attack unlawful, a failure directly caused by the Secretary Hexeth's [36:07] dismantling of key infrastructure designed to prevent such errors. With respect to the strike on the [36:13] elementary school, those institutional failures manifested in systemic non-compliance with Department of [36:20] Defense targeting doctrine and legal guidance. The strike on the elementary school was not an isolated [36:27] targeting failure, divorced from the conduct of the Secretary of Defense, nor can Secretary Hexeth's conduct be [36:35] dismissed as a single targeting error or isolated failure in the fog of war. The elementary school was struck [36:43] after Secretary Hexeth sought to repeal congressionally mandated civilian protection requirements, dismantled the [36:51] department's civilian harm mitigation infrastructure, removed the senior most judge advocates general responsible for independent [36:59] legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the national defense strategy, and publicly degenerated [37:07] legal restraints on military force as obstacles to maximum lethality. He thereby weakened nearly every institutional [37:16] safeguard designed to minimize civilian casualties inflicted by the United States military, and then presided over a targeting [37:24] process in which a functioning elementary school was struck three times, killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, [37:31] mostly children. Such conduct reflects not merely a failure of judgment, but an extraordinary abuse of powers [37:40] entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and a profound disregard for the civilians his department was obligated to protect, [37:47] and the service members he was entrusted to lead. In all of this, Secretary Hexeth willfully and systemically refused to [37:56] comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict, [38:03] chilled and rendered ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, and therefore, forcibly effected [38:12] the death and injury of over 200 civilians to the manifest injury of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense, [38:21] Peter Hexeth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of United States military operations, [38:30] the integrity and credibility of the United States armed forces, and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, [38:37] and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hexeth thus warns impeachment and trial, [38:45] removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [38:54] Article 5, extrajudicial killings. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have [39:03] the sole power of impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [39:09] shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. [39:18] In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hexeth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the [39:25] United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [39:33] especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense, [39:39] and that, using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth directed the Department of Defense, [39:46] in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 243 persons aboard seagoing vessels, [39:54] alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea, and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally [40:01] in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that chilled independent legal [40:08] review within the Department of Defense, constructed a purported legal basis for the use of military force [40:15] without constitutional or statutory authorization, and displaced longstanding president, and codified [40:21] maritime law enforcement practices that are jurisdictionally assigned to the Coast Guard and law enforcement [40:28] agencies, by substituting in such place the use of summary lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, [40:37] and Marine Corps elements. While doing so, Secretary Hexeth also oversaw orders denying corridor and failing to provide rescue, [40:47] including secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors who were ordakumba and abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, [40:57] thereby endangering members of our armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries [41:04] to subject American service members to the same treatment, by subjecting persons merely suspected of criminal conduct [41:14] to lethal military force without judicial process, without congressional authorization, and without [41:22] establishing a lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military targets. Secretary Hexeth [41:29] arrogated to himself and the executive branch the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, and asserted the [41:37] unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die. Such a power is foreign to the rule of law, [41:44] repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United States and the Western world, [41:49] and contrary to United States law and customary international law. This conduct undermined the [41:55] integrity and credibility of the United States and its armed forces, damaged the diplomatic standing [42:01] of the United States, and injured the interests of the nation. Secretary Hexeth engaged in this scheme [42:09] of course or course of conduct through the following means. One, Secretary Hexeth authorized strikes [42:15] beginning on September 2, 2025, without authorization from Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, [42:24] of the United States Constitution, and in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory [42:30] authorization for the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United [42:37] States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, as provided in Chapter 33 of Title 50, United States [42:45] Code. Two, Secretary Hexeth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against seagoing vessels alleged to be [42:52] smuggling narcotics in international waters, comprising of at least 69 separate attack events, 46 in the [43:01] eastern Pacific Ocean, 21 in the Caribbean Ocean, and the Caribbean Sea, and two, in unspecified [43:09] locations, which at least struck 73 vessels and killed at least 243 individuals. In doing so, a Secretary Hexeth [43:19] displaced the statutory framework established by Sections 70503 and 70504 of Title 46 United States Code, under which [43:30] Congress expressly treated maritime narcotic offenses, including conduct occurring on the high seas, [43:37] as federal crimes subject to apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States District [43:44] Court, and instead treated such offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting. B. Secretary Hexeth [43:55] has regarded the statutory restrictions in Section 274 and 275 of Title X United States Code, [44:02] governing direct participation by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps in civilian law [44:09] enforcement activities, including federal narcotics enforcement by employing lethal military force against [44:15] persons suspected of drug trafficking, absent any congressionally enacted authorization for the use of [44:23] military force or other statutory authorization for such direct military action. C. Secretary Hexeth [44:31] disregarded the maritime law enforcement framework established by Sections 102 and 522 of Title 14 [44:39] United States Code, as well as Section 279 of Title X United States Code, under which only the Coast Guard is [44:47] authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure, and arrest, and he did so by directing members of the Army, [44:55] Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in place of the law enforcement processes. [45:02] C. Secretary Hexeth established targeting guidelines for such strikes on August 5, 2025, by issuing an executive [45:11] order EXORD, directing the use of United States military force against persons alleged to be members or [45:19] affiliates of certain designated terrorist organization DTOs, as follows. A. Secretary Hexeth established [45:29] guidelines that I. Used designated terrorist organizations as a targeting category, notwithstanding [45:36] the term, is not a congressionally created designation conferring authority to use military force. [45:42] C. Double I. Did not require positive identification of any targeted person, but instead required only [45:50] reasonable certainty that such person was a member or affiliated of a DTO, a threshold lower than the [45:58] near certainty standard established for drone strikes on suspected Al-Qaeda militants during the [46:04] congressionally authorized global war on terror. C. Triple I. Did not require the presence of weapons or [46:12] narcotics on targeted vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in association with a DTO. [46:19] C. Four. Secretary Hexeth, in the course of such strikes, oversaw orders resulting in the denial of [46:52] quarter two and the failure to provide timely rescue for shipwrecked survivors of initial strikes including [46:58] A. On September 2, 2025, during the first strike of the campaign, the United States Navy attacked a [47:05] seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela and the nearby Caribbean nation of [47:11] Trinidad and Tobago. The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel. Approximately 45 minutes later, [47:17] while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a secondary strike was ordered killing both survivors. [47:22] In doing so, Secretary Hexeth has endangered members of our armed forces in future military [47:28] engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment [47:33] and be. On December 30, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels approximately 400 [47:40] nautical miles southwest of Ocoast, Guatemala, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three persons and [47:47] leaving eight others shipwrecked. Although the campaign had been underway for approximately four [47:52] months, no recovery assets had been prepositioned to rescue survivors. Rescue assets did not arrive [47:58] until approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all eight shipwrecked survivors had died [48:04] at sea. In doing so, Secretary Hexeth has endangered members of our armed forces in future military [48:11] engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment. [48:16] 5. Secretary Hexeth took actions to preempt, constraint, and overcome independent legal [48:22] objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including [48:28] a Secretary Hexeth removed the senior-most Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force [48:34] without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably chilling the exercise of independent legal [48:40] judgment by Judge Advocates tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness of combat [48:46] operations, and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on February 25, 2025, that he did [48:53] not want military lawyers to serve as roadblocks to orders that are given by a Commander-in-Chief B. [48:59] Secretary Hexeth employed an interagency group of lawyers comprising four career officials and four [49:05] political appointees from the Department of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [49:10] the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel to develop a classified [49:17] memorandum purporting to establish a legal basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections [49:23] to their execution falsely asserting the following. Aye. The United States is engaged in a non-international [49:30] armed conflict, NIAC, with 24 Latin American designated terrorist organizations, DTOs, thereby attempting to [49:38] displace the governing law enforcement framework as established in paragraph 2, and substitute an [49:44] armed conflict framework for the conduct of military operations against such organizations, [49:50] despite the absence of congressional authorization for such military action, notwithstanding 1. [49:56] Pursuant to Little v. Barham, 1804, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 2014, [50:05] an executive branch legal memorandum cannot enlarge authority, conferred by Congress, or legalized [50:10] conduct otherwise unauthorized by statute. Double I. The strikes do not constitute hostilities within [50:17] the meaning of Chapter 33 of Title 50 United States Code because they do not place United States personnel [50:23] in danger, presumptively on the basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense, a predicate that [50:30] would likewise mean that any military action conducted by drone or any airstrike against a target lacking [50:36] air defense capabilities cannot also constitute hostilities in IIII. The DTOs are engaged in armed [50:43] violence against the security forces of allied nations, including Mexico, and such violence is [50:49] financed through cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against [50:54] cocaine shipments, and that the deaths of persons aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage, a [50:59] rationale inconsistent with the EXORD targeting guidelines described in Paragraph 3, which did not [51:05] require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel, and instead authorized targeting based on [51:10] alleged DTO membership or affiliation. Secretary Hexeth abused the authority and trust vested in him as [51:17] Secretary of Defense, not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force, resulting in the summary [51:24] execution of at least 243 persons in international waters, but also by using his office to compel members [51:31] of the armed forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be [51:37] constructed and imposed upon the chain of command. In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hexeth [51:44] endangered members of the United States Armed Forces in the future military engagements by encouraging [51:49] adversaries to subject American service members to such treatment. Secretary Hexeth further [51:54] endangered United States law enforcement personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for [52:00] the established maritime law enforcement practices of interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, [52:06] and prosecution. By demonstrating that vessels merely suspected of narcotics trafficking may be [52:11] destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicted and arrested, Secretary Hexeth [52:17] foreseeably increased the likelihood that persons aboard such vessels will perceive future encounters with the [52:22] United States authorities as threats to their lives and respond with lethal force rather than surrender. [52:28] In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign, [52:33] but also made lawful enforcement of United States narcotics laws at sea more dangerous for the Coast Guard [52:39] and other federal personnel charged with carrying them out. In all this, Secretary Hexeth has acted in a matter contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense [52:50] and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, [52:56] and to the manifest injury of the United States of America, wherefore Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth [53:03] by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, [53:08] the integrity of United States diplomacy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, [53:13] and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. [53:17] Peter Brian Hexeth thus warrants impeachment and trial removal from office and disqualification [53:24] to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [53:29] Article 6, Suppressing Free Speech. [53:33] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment [53:38] and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [53:42] shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of [53:46] treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. [53:50] In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hexeth, in violation of his oath to support and [53:57] defend the Constitution of the United States and to faithfully discharge the duties of his office, [54:02] abused the powers entrusted to him by retaliating against a member of Congress for constitutionally [54:09] protected speech, and attempting to subject a member of a co-ordinate branch of government to executive branch [54:15] punishment for the exercise of his legislative and oversight responsibilities in that. [54:20] On November 18, 2025, Senator Mark Kelly, a retired United States Navy Captain and National Aeronautics and [54:28] Space Administration astronaut, who flew 39 combat missions during the first Gulf War, and who sits on the Senate [54:36] Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared in his official capacity [54:41] as a senator in a video addressed to members of the United States Armed Forces stating, [54:46] Our laws are clear. [54:47] You can refuse illegal orders. [54:49] Despite such a statement being consistent with decisions in United States v. Keenan, 1969, [54:56] and United States v. Kelly, 1973, Secretary Hexeth weaponized the Department of Defense [55:03] to retaliate against and intimidate Senator Mark Kelly for such a statement. [55:08] Secretary Hexeth did so despite the fact that Senator Kelly is a sitting United States Senator [55:14] who cannot fulfill his role in representative government if he fears executive branch reprisals [55:19] for expressing his views. As the Supreme Court held in Bond v. Floyd, 1966, representative government [55:26] requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. [55:33] Members of Congress, moreover, enjoy speech or debate immunity. Under Article I, Section 6, [55:39] Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and Senator Kelly, as a retired service member, [55:47] is entitled to the full breadth of First Amendment protection. Using the powers of his office, [55:53] Secretary Hexeth retaliated against and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly [55:59] for his statement through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere with Congress's [56:04] constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch, grossly expand Article II powers to [56:11] expense of both the legislative and judicial branches of government, and to establish a precedent [56:16] that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired United States service members and inflict [56:21] irreparable harm upon the First Amendment freedoms. Secretary Hexeth engaged in this scheme or course of [56:27] conduct through the following means. One, on November 24, 2025, the Department of Defense, [56:34] through a social media post on X, threatened that Senator Mark Kelly could be recalled to active duty [56:39] for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures for his statement. Two, on November 25, 2025, [56:47] Secretary Hexeth directed the Secretary of the Navy to review Senator Kelly. Three, on January 5, [56:53] 2026, Secretary Hexeth issued a secretarial letter of censure against Senator Kelly for A, saying you can [57:01] refuse illegal orders. B, saying he would always defend the Constitution. C, questioning the legality [57:09] of military operations as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. D, [57:15] criticizing military leadership, Hexeth, for surrounding himself with yes men. And E, allegedly accusing [57:23] Secretary Hexeth of war crimes. Four, in the letter of censure, Secretary Hexeth also threatened Senator [57:31] Kelly with criminal prosecution or further administrative action, including the reduction [57:36] of Senator Kelly's retired military grade. Should the Senator continue to question the legality of [57:41] military operations or criticize Secretary Hexeth? Five, in response to a January 12, 2026 complaint [57:49] filed by Senator Mark Kelly against Secretary Hexeth for retaliating against and intimidating the Senator [57:56] for his First Amendment-protected speech, Secretary Hexeth filed a memorandum of opposition to Senator [58:01] Kelly's motion for a preliminary injunction, egregiously asserting A, Senator Kelly, as a retired naval [58:09] officer, has diminished First Amendment protections. B, Department of Defense actions against Senator Kelly's [58:15] constitutional rights due to his statements relating to military affairs and his being a retired naval [58:22] officer constitute non-justiciable military personnel decisions. C, Secretary Hexeth's opinions supersede [58:29] the court's jurisdiction to determine whether the government could censure, threaten, and financially [58:35] punish Senator Kelly because of his speech. And D, Senator Kelly is required to exhaust military [58:40] administrative remedies before seeking relief in an Article III court, thereby seeking to place the [58:46] adjudication of Senator Kelly's constitutional rights within military processes controlled by [58:51] the executive branch. Thus, in addition to abusing the powers of the Office of Secretary of Defense [58:57] for politically motivated reprisal against Senator Kelly, for the Senator's criticism of conduct [59:05] implicating potential war crimes, Secretary Hexeth grossly violated or sought to violate [59:11] the separation of powers by attempting to subordinate both the legislative and judicial branches [59:16] in matters concerning constitutional rights to the authority of the Department of Defense. [59:21] In the same effort, Secretary Hexeth sought without precedent to extend to retired service members [59:27] the diminished First Amendment protections applicable to active duty service members under Parker v. [59:32] Levy, 1974, including retired service members serving in Congress and exercising constitutional oversight [59:40] over the military. He further asserted in substance that the military rather than Article III courts [59:46] possesses supremacy to determine the constitutional rights of civilians and to adjudicate whether its own [59:52] actions conform to the Constitution and laws of the United States. At minimum, with respect to the [59:57] speech of retired service members, despite such position being in flagrant conflict with Marbury v. [1:00:04] Madison, 1803, which holds that it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to [1:00:10] say what the law is, not the military. The result of such effort, had Secretary Hexeth been successful, [1:00:17] would have subjected the speech and congressional oversight activities of nearly 20 percent of the [1:00:21] current Congress, and whatever proportion of future Congresses may consist of retired service members, [1:00:27] as well as the speech of millions of other retired service members to the will and discretion of the [1:00:32] Department of Defense, without any immediate avenue of recourse outside the Department to vindicate their [1:00:37] constitutional rights. Such a result would constitute one of the most extraordinary expansions of [1:00:43] executive branch power in the history of the United States. In all of this, Secretary Hexeth abused the [1:00:50] powers of the Department of Defense by retaliating against and attempting to intimidate a sitting United [1:00:55] States Senator through the threats of punishment for speech protected by the First Amendment to the United [1:01:00] States Constitution in an effort to deter that Senator from fulfilling his constitutional role in [1:01:06] overseeing the executive branch. In doing so, Secretary Hexeth weaponized the Department of Defense to chill [1:01:13] a core function of the legislative branch, encroach upon the constitutional role of the judicial branch, [1:01:19] by seeking to insulate such retaliation for meaningful judicial review, and through the precedent he sought to [1:01:25] establish place the First Amendment rights of millions of United States Veterans at risk of irreparable harm. [1:01:32] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat [1:01:38] to the Constitution and the separation of powers if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner [1:01:43] grossly incompatible with his duties, the rule of law, and the constitutional liberties entrusted to his protection. [1:01:50] Peter Brian Hexeth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to [1:01:56] hold in joy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article 7, kidnapping of a [1:02:03] sovereign foreign leader. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the [1:02:09] sole power of impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [1:02:15] shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and [1:02:21] misdemeanors. In his conduct of the Office of Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his [1:02:26] constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of Defense, and to the best of his [1:02:32] ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his [1:02:37] constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the [1:02:42] Commission of War, Peter Brian Hexeth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that, [1:02:48] using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth directed the Department of Defense to [1:02:53] carry out an unprecedented military operation code name, Absolute Resolve, to capture and kidnap [1:03:00] President Nicolas Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and his wife Celia Flores, [1:03:06] from Venezuela, an act of war against a sovereign country. Executed under the guise of narcotics law [1:03:12] enforcement, though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela's oil reserves. In doing [1:03:20] so, he gambled the lives of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel in order to facilitate the [1:03:27] illegal taking of national oil. To wit, immediately following such attack, Secretary Hexeth appeared [1:03:33] alongside President Donald J. Trump, during which the President announced in reference to Venezuela, [1:03:39] We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition, [1:03:47] so we don't have to be involved with having somebody else get in. And we have the same situation that we [1:03:54] had. We're going to run it, essentially. And we're going to have our very large United States oil companies, [1:04:01] the biggest anywhere in the world, going in and start making money. And we are ready to stage a second and [1:04:07] much larger attack if we need to do so, thus revealing the motives behind the foreseeable [1:04:12] forcible removal of President Maduro, which extended far beyond the narcotics law enforcement [1:04:17] rationale on which the operation was falsely predicated. On January 3, 2026, Secretary Hexeth [1:04:25] directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities in and around Caracas, Venezuela, [1:04:30] employing more than 200 United States Special Operations personnel on the ground, [1:04:35] and more than 150 aircraft and drones, including fighter aircraft, bombers, armed helicopters, [1:04:41] and electronic war aircraft, supported by a substantial naval force that included the Iwo Jima [1:04:47] Amphibious Ready Group and the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, which together penetrated Venezuelan [1:04:53] territory, suppressed and destroyed Venezuelan air defenses, struck multiple targets in the Caracas area, [1:05:00] inserted an armed ground force into Caracas to seize Maduro, successfully kidnapped Maduro, killed at [1:05:06] least 83 people, including several civilians, and caused seven American casualties. In doing so, one, [1:05:13] Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders affecting the removal of the President of a sovereign nation, [1:05:21] placed boots on the ground, conducted preparatory bombardments, inflicted substantial casualties, [1:05:28] and subsequently caused regime change, each of which constitutes acts of war. [1:05:32] Two, Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders violating Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United [1:05:39] States Constitution by I, ordering United States Armed Forces to commit an act of war against Venezuela [1:05:47] without a declaration of war by Congress against such nation, and double I, making rules concerning [1:05:52] captors on land, a power specifically vested in Congress, where Congress had made no rules [1:05:58] authorizing or otherwise applicable to such operations, and three, Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders [1:06:05] and contribution of Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1541 of Title 50 United [1:06:19] States Code by entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Venezuela on January 3, [1:06:24] 2026, without a declaration of war and specific statutory authorization or a national emergency [1:06:32] created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces. [1:06:37] Through these actions, Secretary Hexeth knowingly directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities [1:06:43] against a sovereign foreign nation without clear constitutional or specific statutory authority, [1:06:49] employing military force of a nature and magnitude rising to the level of constitutional war, [1:06:54] in doing so, Secretary Hexeth usurped Congress's constitutional authority over war, [1:07:00] and transformed the Department of Defense into an instrument for objectives extending far beyond [1:07:05] the apprehension of Nicolas Maduro for purposes of narcotics law enforcement, including regime change, [1:07:11] and the acquisition of foreign oil. In all of this, Secretary Hexeth abused the powers of the Department of [1:07:17] Defense, violated laws and treaty obligations of the United States, and subordinated the constitutional [1:07:24] allocation of war powers to executive objectives, neither authorized nor approved by Congress. [1:07:29] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain [1:07:35] a threat to the Constitution and the well-being of United States military personnel, if allowed to [1:07:40] remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. [1:07:45] Peter Brian Hexeth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to [1:07:51] hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article 8, Unlawful War in Yemen. [1:07:59] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of [1:08:03] impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [1:08:08] shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high [1:08:14] crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct, while Secretary of Defense Peter Brian Hexeth, [1:08:19] in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, [1:08:24] and in violation to his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, [1:08:28] and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [1:08:33] especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department in that, [1:08:39] using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth directed the Department [1:08:44] of Defense in a manner leading to the deaths of an estimated 224 civilians, as well as approximately [1:08:51] 500 to 600 Houthi fighters, through the initiation and direction of Operation Rough Rider. [1:09:00] The operation comprised more than 1,100 strikes against targets in Yemen over approximately 52 days. [1:09:06] In less than eight weeks, there were nearly as many civilian deaths in Yemen as United States military [1:09:12] actions has caused in that country than the preceding 23 years. Secretary Hexeth initiated and directed [1:09:18] these hostilities in the absence of any of the predicates required in Section 2 of the War Powers [1:09:24] Resolution of 1973 for the President to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities. [1:09:30] Moreover, Secretary Hexeth acknowledged the absence of any imminent threat to the United States, [1:09:36] further undermining any assertion of Article 2 authority to initiate such hostilities without [1:09:42] Congressional authorization. Secretary Hexeth initiated and directed Operation Rough Rider without [1:09:47] Congressional authority pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution [1:09:54] or statutory authorization in that one. Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders and contravention of [1:10:01] Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1541 of Title 50 United States Code, [1:10:09] by entering and sustaining United States Navy and Air Force personnel into hostilities in Yemen [1:10:15] between March 15 and May 6, 2025, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, [1:10:22] or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, [1:10:27] or its armed forces. Secretary Hexeth executed unlawful orders and contravention of Section 4 of the [1:10:34] War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1543 of Title 50 United States Code, by continuing to direct [1:10:42] United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen after March 17, 2025, despite the President of [1:10:49] the United States having failed to notify Congress of such hostilities within 48 hours of their [1:10:53] commencement, as required by Section 4A and notwithstanding that the President did not transmit [1:10:59] such a report to Congress until March 28, 2025, thereby further undermining any possible Article 2 [1:11:06] authority for the continued hostilities, especially during such 13-day period. [1:11:10] 3. Outside of the requirements to engage in hostilities pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [1:11:17] Secretary Hexeth directed Operation Rough Rider in the absence of any imminent threat requiring military action, [1:11:23] without prior Congressional authorization, as evidenced by a leaked signal check involving Secretary Hexeth [1:11:29] concerning the potential execution of Operation Rough Rider in which a several senior United States [1:11:35] government officials, including Secretary Hexeth, each possessing unfettered access to military [1:11:40] and intelligence information, advised there was no immediate need to enter United States Armed Forces [1:11:46] into hostilities in Yemen, thereby asserting there was no imminent threat to the United States, [1:11:51] its possessions, or territories, or its armed forces as indicated through the following communications. [1:11:57] I. Vice President J.D. Vance stating, there is a strong argument for delaying Operation Rough Rider a month. [1:12:04] Double I. Then Acting Chief of Staff to the National Security Advisor Joe Kent stating, [1:12:09] there is nothing time sensitive driving this timeline. We'll have the exact same options in a month. [1:12:15] Triple I. Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe stating, a delay would not negatively impact us, [1:12:23] and additional time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership. [1:12:28] I. V. Addressing the timing of Operation Rough Rider, Secretary Hexeth stated, we can easily pause. [1:12:35] V. Addressing the Vice President's concerns regarding Operation Rough Rider's immediate commencement, Secretary Hexeth stated, [1:12:43] VP, I understand your concerns to immediate risk on waiting. [1:12:47] This leaks and we look indecisive too. Israel takes action first, or Gaza sees fire falls apart, and we don't get to start this on our own terms. [1:13:00] This is not about the Houthis. It's about reestablishing deterrence, which Biden cratered. [1:13:06] Thus, Secretary Hexeth knew there was no imminent threat to the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces. [1:13:13] As such as a threat existed, there would have been no basis for him to state that we can easily pause. [1:13:19] Moreover, the only immediate risk identified by Secretary Hexeth concerned media optics and Israeli affairs, [1:13:25] rather than the direct affairs of the United States of America, the nation to which his oath is sworn. [1:13:30] In all of this, Secretary Hexeth abused the powers entrusted to him as Secretary of Defense by subordinating the constitutional limits [1:13:38] of the use of military force and the laws governing the conduct of hostilities to his own policy objectives, [1:13:44] notwithstanding his knowledge that no imminent threat to the United States existed, [1:13:49] and demonstrated a profound disregard for civilian life and the rule of law, [1:13:54] the constitutional authority of Congress and its duty to ensure the lawful conduct of the United States Armed Forces. [1:14:00] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hexeth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, [1:14:07] the lawful conduct of United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States Armed Forces, [1:14:14] 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. [1:14:22] Peter Brian Hexeth thus warns impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [1:14:38] The resolution qualifies. For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition? [1:14:44] Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk. [1:14:49] The clerk will report the motion. [1:14:51] Mr. Issa of California moves to refer the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary. [1:14:56] The gentleman from California is recognized for one hour. [1:15:01] I heard adoption and yield back. [1:15:05] Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion. [1:15:10] The question is on the motion to refer the resolution. [1:15:15] Those in favor say aye. [1:15:17] Those opposed say no. [1:15:20] In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. [1:15:25] The motion is not adopted. [1:15:26] Mr. Speaker. [1:15:28] The gentleman from Kentucky. [1:15:30] I request the yeas and the nays. [1:15:34] The yeas and nays are requested. [1:15:41] Those in favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. [1:15:45] A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. [1:15:53] Members will record their votes by electronic device. [1:15:56] To Clause 9 of Rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to refer will be followed by a five-minute vote on ordering the previous question on the House Resolution 1650. [1:16:21] And adoption of House Resolution 1650 if ordered. [1:16:28] This is a 15-minute vote. [1:16:31] On this vote, the yeas are 2-11. [1:43:26] The nays are 2-0-4. [1:43:28] The motion is adopted. [1:43:31] The motion to reconsider is laid on the table. [1:43:36] The motion to reconsider is laid on the table. [1:43:38] Pursuant to Clause 8 of Rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1650 on which the ayes and nays are ordered. [1:43:52] The clerk will re- [1:43:53] the clerk will re-