Democratic lawmakers are considering hearings, subpoenas, and renewed impeachment proceedings involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but their ability to act would depend on winning at least one chamber in November.
Congressional Democrats are preparing an aggressive campaign of investigations into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if they win control of Congress in November, according to a new report detailing plans for hearings, document demands, and possible subpoenas.
The proposed inquiries would reportedly examine the war with Iran, allegations involving civilian casualties and the laws of armed conflict, Pentagon contracts, the removal of senior military officers, internal leak investigations, and Hegseth’s handling of sensitive operational information.
Some House Democrats have already moved beyond oversight demands. In April, a group of lawmakers introduced six articles of impeachment against Hegseth, although the effort has little chance of advancing while Republicans control the chamber.
The discussions remain contingent plans, not scheduled proceedings. Democrats would need to capture the House, the Senate, or both in the Nov. 3 elections before they could control committee agendas and pursue the full range of investigative actions under consideration.
Hearings and subpoenas under consideration
Democrats are considering a “blitz” of public hearings and inquiries if they gain congressional power, according to Politico reporting.
Winning the House would allow Democrats to select committee chairmen, schedule hearings, demand documents, and issue subpoenas, subject to House and committee rules. Committees could call Hegseth and other Pentagon officials to testify about military operations, personnel decisions, procurement, and the department’s compliance with congressional oversight requests.
Control of the Senate would provide separate investigative authority through committees including Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators would also oversee Pentagon nominations and could use confirmation proceedings to press administration officials for information.
Executive branch officials can assert privileges, challenge congressional demands, negotiate the scope of requests, or fight them in court. Such disputes can continue for months or years, limiting the immediate effect of an investigation.
Existing impeachment articles outline Democrats’ case
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth in April with support from several other House Democrats.
According to the seven-page resolution, the articles accuse Hegseth of:
- Participating in an unauthorized war against Iran and recklessly endangering U.S. service members;
- Violating the law of armed conflict and permitting attacks that caused civilian casualties;
- Mishandling sensitive military information;
- Obstructing congressional oversight;
- Abusing his authority and politicizing the military; and
- Engaging in conduct the sponsors contend brought disrepute upon the United States and its armed forces.
The Pentagon dismissed the effort when the articles were introduced.
“This is just another Democrat trying to make headlines as the Department of War decisively and overwhelmingly achieved the Presidents’ objectives in Iran,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said.
“Secretary Hegseth will continue to protect the homeland and project peace through strength,” Wilson added. “This is just another charade in an attempt to distract the American people from the major successes we have had here at the Department of War.”
Iran and Pentagon leadership take center stage
The Iran war would likely become one of the largest components of any Democratic-led investigation.
The impeachment resolution cites a Feb. 28 bombing of a girls’ school in Iran that killed 168 people. A preliminary U.S. assessment reportedly concluded that American forces were “likely” responsible but did not intentionally target the school and may have struck it by mistake. Any congressional investigation would be expected to examine targeting procedures, intelligence assessments, command decisions, and the administration’s legal justification for military operations.
Democrats also want to examine allegations involving other military strikes and determine whether U.S. forces complied with the law of armed conflict. The Pentagon has disputed accusations that its operations deliberately targeted civilians.
Personnel decisions present another point of conflict. Democrats have criticized Hegseth over the removal of senior officers and what they describe as the politicization of military leadership. The administration has defended personnel changes as necessary to restore accountability, readiness, and a focus on combat effectiveness.
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) recently said lawmakers had not received a briefing on a Pentagon investigation into leaks concerning U.S. weapons stockpiles. Crow, a member of both the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, accused Hegseth of creating “an environment of fear.”
“Certainly, stopping leaks and protecting classified information is really important, and I would always support that,” Crow said. “The problem is the broader context that Pete Hegseth has created here.”
Pentagon officials said the investigation did not subject every senior military leader to polygraph examinations and that no one failed the tests.
Impeachment would face a much higher barrier
A Democratic House could revive the existing articles, introduce new charges, or conduct hearings before deciding whether to proceed. Impeachment requires only a majority vote in the House.
Removing Hegseth from office would be far more difficult. The Senate would have to hold a trial, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote of senators present. Unless Democrats won an overwhelming Senate majority, removal would require substantial Republican support.
Only two Cabinet officials have been impeached. Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876 but acquitted by the Senate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the Republican-controlled House in 2024, but the Democratic-controlled Senate dismissed the charges without conducting a full trial.
For that reason, hearings and subpoenas are substantially more plausible than Hegseth’s removal. Democratic control of even one chamber could subject the Pentagon to sustained public scrutiny, but impeachment would remain only the first step in a much more demanding constitutional process.
The November elections will determine whether the plans move from private discussions and minority-party demands to formal congressional investigations. Until then, Democrats can request records and introduce resolutions, but Republicans retain control over whether the House and Senate put Hegseth under the level of scrutiny his critics are promising.
READ NEXT: Iran Quietly Restarts Ballistic Missile Production Underground
MORE EVIDENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC’s EVER-REVOLVING MERRY-GO-ROUND!
So are you dizzy and waking up to the fact that you’ve been played like a fiddle?
Round and round and round and round again (incessantly) goes the Constitutional Republic’s election merry-go-round, providing both species of Crocodiles (disguised as Donkeys and Elephants) their turn at the helm, to undo whatever was accomplished by the previous administration.
And the only direction it travels is round and round and round and round again (incessantly). It never changes and yet, tragically, every two and four years Americans clamor for their alleged voting rights to elect another nincompoop, scoundrel, incompetent, infidel, immoral reprobate, or other outright criminal to rule over them.
230-plus years of the Constitutional Republic’s elections has proven that regardless whether a Donkey or an Elephant gets elected, America has only advanced further down her suicidal trek to the precipice.
Time to get some long-range eyesight and get off the Constitution’s biblically egregious election carousel. God has better plan!
The best the Constitutional Republic’s election system can ever produce is the lesser of two evils. Sometimes, the worst of the worst. And always, the evil of two lessers.
The Bible’s election system provides the best of the best of two or more biblically qualified candidates, every single time. But to get there, we have to first wake up today’s patriots and Christians to their constitutional idolatry.
For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious and the genesis of America’s slide to the precipice, see free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at bible versus constitution dot org. Click on the top entry on our Online Book page.
See also blog article “Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table.'” Search title on our Blog.
Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.”