Hegseth Responds to Calls to Resign

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rejected calls for his removal and said the administration would not retreat from its military policy changes. “We don’t back down. That especially applies now,” he stated. He added, “We tore down their sacred cows, one by one, without apology.”

The comments followed midterm losses for Republicans and renewed discussion of impeachment. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, plans to force a vote on articles he introduced in September. Those articles include allegations related to the administration’s handling of the Iran war. The earlier effort had stalled when the House adjourned before the elections.

Hegseth compared the moves against him to the two impeachments of President Donald Trump. “They’re obsessed. A disgruntled, defeated congressman, along with all his Democrat allies, has also dropped sham articles of impeachment against yours truly, just like they tried against President Trump twice.” He did not name the congressman in that passage.

A separate impeachment measure was introduced by Rep. Shri Thanedar, a Michigan Democrat, with support from other Democrats. Hegseth argued that opponents were turning to personal attacks because their policies had failed. “You see, their policies don’t work, so their obsession with political theater disguised as power drives them to try to destroy their opponents. It’s all about the politics of personal destruction. Didn’t work against President Trump, and it won’t work with me.”

President Trump publicly defended Hegseth on Wednesday and said he intended to keep him in the Cabinet. A House vote to impeach would not remove the secretary. Removal would require a Senate trial and a two-thirds vote to convict.

Hegseth said the work would continue. “I’ll assure you, we have only just begun to fight. We are more determined than ever, more resolute than ever to finish what we have started.” He posted a separate message stating, “At the War Department: We Stand. We Fight. We Defend the Republic.”

Massie’s articles have been public since September. The decision to force a vote after the elections revives a process that had been paused. Democratic support for a parallel measure adds to the number of members who have signed on to impeachment language.

Hegseth’s reference to “sacred cows” points to policy shifts implemented at the Pentagon during his tenure. Those changes have been defended by the administration as necessary corrections. Critics have treated them as grounds for the impeachment articles.

The comparison to Trump’s impeachments frames the current effort as repetitive political action rather than a response to new evidence. Hegseth has maintained that the articles lack merit. The White House has echoed that assessment.

Thanedar’s measure operates on a separate track from Massie’s. Both would require House passage before any Senate proceeding could begin. With Democrats holding the majority in the next Congress, the procedural path differs from the period when the articles were first introduced.

Trump’s statement of support removes any immediate question about Hegseth’s standing inside the administration. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president. The public defense indicates that pleasure has not changed.

Impeachment in the House is a majority vote. Conviction in the Senate demands a higher threshold. Historical precedent shows that even successful House impeachments have rarely produced Senate removal.

Hegseth’s closing assurance that the fight has “only just begun” signals continuity of the existing agenda. No policy reversal was announced in response to the impeachment talk. The Pentagon’s public messaging has remained consistent with the secretary’s remarks.

The timing ties the renewed impeachment push to the midterm results. Republican losses altered the balance of power that will exist when the new Congress convenes. Hegseth’s response treats that shift as irrelevant to his continuation in office.

Massie has positioned his effort as accountability for specific decisions. Hegseth has characterized it as personal and political. The two descriptions have not been reconciled in public statements.

The Senate’s two-thirds requirement makes removal unlikely under current numbers. House passage, if it occurs, would still constitute a formal rebuke. Hegseth’s statements indicate he does not view that possibility as a reason to alter course.

The exchange leaves the impeachment articles as pending business for the incoming House. Hegseth remains in place with presidential backing. Further procedural steps will depend on how the new majority chooses to handle the existing measures.