PETE HEGSETH WASN'T IMPEACHED YESTERDAY, AND MAYBE THAT'S FOR THE BEST

The effort to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth failed yesterday. Every Democrat present voted to impeach, along with one Republican, the paleoconservative Thomas Massie, who filed the impeachment resolution months ago. Eleven Democrats didn't show up for the vote, for various reasons -- one, New Mexico congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, said she was stuck in D.C. traffic, though Illinois congressman Sean Casten was right when he said on Bluesky, "You’ve got to be on time for votes. No excuses."

But Casten added:

Every R except Massie thinks Major Pete is fit to serve.

... it is safe to say after the lockstep R opposition in the House that it would have been politically easy for [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune to simply dismiss the impeachment even if we’d won on a party line vote that took advantage of R absences.

(If you want proof of this, look at how Schumer dealt with the similar party line, no-effort-to-build-a-credible-case impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas. Thune had all the precedent he needed to play that card.)

Right. When majority Republicans impeached President Biden's Homeland Security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, in early 2024, majority Democrats in the Senate dismissed the impeachment articles without a trial, on a party-line vote. Prior to yesterday's House vote, it seemed possible that some Republicans might have voted to convict in the Senate, but now it seems likely that they'd have voted to go straight to a party-line acquittal, with perhaps one or two GOP dissenters.

Casten continued:

This is not to excuse democratic absences yesterday. But there is a silver lining: rushing to do this now and ending with a dismissal in the Senate would have made it harder to do this again. The analogy isn’t perfect, but indicting, failing to convict and indicting again looks like double jeopardy

The Constitution doesn't prohibit repeated impeachments on the same charges, but it would have seemed unfair, and thus been harder to defend.

I agree with Casten:

If impeachment is to lead to removal, the House needs to first build the political case....

Having hearings and public investigations before an impeachment vote is not just for the public; it’s to build the case so that when the trial comes to the Senate there is factual and political support for removal.

Now that can happen. A Democratic Congress can not just impeach Hegseth but make a case for impeaching him, both before a House impeachment vote and in a Senate trial.

I had mixed feelings about this impeachment. The public just voted in large numbers for Democrats in the hope that they'd focus on the needs of Americans, and the first big story coming out of D.C. after the election was this. I know that Democrats aren't in charge yet, but I'm sure that millions of Americans don't understand that, an area of confusion that Republican polemicists are happy to exploit.

Really is amazing that the Democrats spend two years talking about affordability and literally one week after the election they are already trying to impeach administration officials

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) November 10, 2026

In a September Economist/YouGov poll, 51% of respondents expressed support for an impeachment of Hegseth "for starting a war with Iran without authorization by Congress," while 36% were opposed. To that extent, an impeachment of Hegseth seemed like a partial response to voters' concerns -- they want the war ended. But Massie's impeachment articles also covered, among other subjects, the bombing of a school on the first day of the Iran war and boat strikes in the Caribbean.

If majority Democrats make a Hegseth impeachment one of their earliest priorities, and if they focus on these acts, it might seem to the American people that Democrats, like President Trump, are more focused on overseas matters than on America. Yes, these are war crimes, but Americans want the government to focus on America.

And while it would be good to be rid of Hegseth, I've never believed that he had much to do with the decision to go to war with Iran. I don't think he'd be replaced by a secretary with any greater respect for the laws of war, and I think his replacement, like Hegseth, will do whatever Trump wants.

*****

Bizarrely, Trump might be ready to wrap up the war because the otherwise maximally bellicose Stephen Miller thinks it would be a good idea.

Stephen Miller reportedly urged President Donald Trump to end the Iran war during his interview for Susie Wiles's chief of staff position, according to reporting by The New York Times.

As part of their live updates on the White House staff shakeup, reporter Maggie Haberman wrote, "Miller's pitch for the job, according to people who heard it, was that the president needed to wind down the Iran war, a conflict that the president's core supporters viewed as a betrayal."

Trump chose Miller because he wanted someone who'd fight, but in Iran, Miller apparently doesn't want to fight. And this may be having a weird butterfly effect, if you can imagine a butterfly that looks like Stephen Miller:

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly became embroiled in a furious telephone confrontation over the war in Iran, with one source describing the exchange as “a shouting match from hell.”

The heated call took place over the weekend as the two leaders clashed over whether to resume military strikes against Tehran, according to Israeli outlet Ynet, which cited sources familiar with the conversation.

Netanyahu has been pressing for renewed military action against Iran, while Trump has signaled that he wants to give diplomacy another chance amid ongoing negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Can you conceive of the possibility that Miller, of all people, might be the one who persuades Trump to end the war with Iran -- and who deprives Netanyahu of a new wave of attacks intended to rally Israelis around him as his rivals attempt to form a government? Will Netanyahu be unable to make yet another comeback because Trump won't keep fighting the war -- at Stephen Miller's urging?

On the other hand, if we're talking about impeaching Hegseth for, among other things, boat strikes on non-combatants in the Caribbean, should we be impeaching Miller for the same crime? Last year, The Guardian reported,

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, has played a leading role in directing US strikes against suspected Venezuelan drug boats, according to three people familiar with the situation. At times, his role has superseded that of Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser.

MS NOW adds,

Miller ... initially proposed having the CIA conduct lethal strikes, but lawyers in the agency and other parts of the government questioned its legality, The Washington Post reported last year. Policymakers eventually decided to have the Pentagon carry out the strikes instead.

Miller is primarily responsible for the brutality of the immigration crackdown in America. He's the main reason Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, and others died on American streets. I'd like to see him impeached for that primarily, and also for the boat strikes. (Voters care mostly about afforadbility, but they don't like the chaos Trump and Miller have spread on U.S. soil.)

Miller has been a sub-Cabinet official until now, so it will be said that he can't be impeached. However, the Constitution says that those subject to impeachment include "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States." Has Miller been a "civil Officer"? Trust me, if the parties were reversed and a Republican Congress wanted to impeach a Democratic president's chief of staff, or even deputy chief of staff, the GOP and its media allies would simply assert that it's acceptable, and they'd just go ahead with it.

So, sure, impeach Hegseth in the new Congress. But I wish you'd impeach Miller first.