The United States House of Representatives has blocked an attempt to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in a surprise reprieve for President Donald Trump’s administration as Republicans reel from their midterm election defeat .
The impeachment articles were introduced by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, but the effort was backed primarily by Democrats. They accuse Hegseth of abuses of power and conducting illegal military operations.
The Republican-led House voted 211-204 on Tuesday to refer the articles back to the House Judiciary Committee, where they could remain indefinitely. The procedural move in effect killed the impeachment drive for the duration of the current Congress’s term, which ends in eight weeks. On January 3, Democrats will take control of the House and Senate.
In a twist, the absence of 11 Democratic lawmakers during the vote proved decisive.
Here’s what to know about the vote to block Hegseth’s impeachment and what could happen next:
The vote was not on whether to impeach Hegseth. It was on whether to refer the articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, where they may be further investigated or amended.
Such procedural moves are often used as stalling tactics. With the current Congress due to conclude soon, the resolution is unlikely to return to the House floor before its term ends.
Massie called the vote “a procedural motion to kill the resolution”.
Massie was the sole Republican to oppose the measure. The remaining votes fell along party lines with Republicans supporting the measure and Democrats opposing it.
Eighteen representatives were absent from the vote – 11 Democrats and seven Republicans. Had the Democrats shown up and voted with their colleagues, they would have had the numbers to defeat the procedural move, forcing a full House vote on whether to impeach Hegseth as early as this week.
Trump cheered the result of Tuesday’s vote in a social media post, saying the Democrats’ impeachment effort had “miserably FAILED!”
The Democrats absent from the vote were:
The representatives have given varying explanations for why they did not show up.
Strickland, Jackson, Stansbury and Gillen all blamed a traffic delay in Washington, DC.
Pelosi said she was in her home state for a veterans event while Correa said he was in California before undergoing a health procedure. Horsford’s office cited a personal emergency.
Pettersen, who said she helped introduce articles of impeachment against Hegseth in April, said she had been “denied the ability to vote on this motion” without elaborating.
Jackson, Stansbury, Gillen, Strickland, Horsford, Pelosi and Pettersen all said they would have joined their Democratic colleagues in opposing the measure. Jackson and Stansbury also said they had formally recorded their opposition in the Congressional Record although this does not change the official vote count.
There was no immediate comment from Stevens, Brownley or Wilson on their absences.
Stevens previously criticised the Trump administration for launching the war on Iran with Israel and sought more congressional oversight. But days before the US midterm elections on November 3, the Michigan congresswoman, who had lost the Democratic primary for the state’s open Senate seat earlier to Abdul El-Sayed, endorsed Republican candidate Mike Rogers against her own party’s nominee.
Wilson, 83, on Monday attended the groundbreaking for a housing project in Miami-Dade County. Wilson and Brownley, like Stevens, previously opposed Trump’s handling of the war on Iran and demanded the administration seek congressional approval for the fighting.
Democratic politicians and progressive commentators have expressed outrage that poor attendance from Democrats impacted the outcome of the vote.
Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove from California said: “We knew that this vote was coming, so people should have gotten their raggedy selves up these steps to vote.”
“There is no reason why we should have lost this vote because of attendance issues,” she added.
Senator-elect El-Sayed, responding to a question about the absent Democrats, said: “You should show up and do your job.”
Some pundits pointed the finger at Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is expected to become the new speaker of the House in January. They accused him of failing to exert sufficient pressure on party members to defeat the measure.
Political commentator Krystal Ball called the vote “a major Hakeem Jeffries fail”.
“You could have impeached the war criminal Pete Hegseth but Dems didn’t show up to vote,” she said.
Progressive writer Laura Bassett said: “Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote. He told people to ‘vote their conscience’, and 11 members of his caucus didn’t show up. This is why people want a stronger leader.”
Yes. When the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January, they could begin the process again and will be in a stronger position to advance impeachment articles.
Jeffries has said he will consult members about another potential bid to impeach Hegseth next year. “We’ll have that conversation at the appropriate time,” he said.
However, a vote to impeach Hegseth does not necessarily mean he will be removed from office. Impeachment itself means the House has formally brought charges against a federal official, similar to a criminal indictment.
A successful impeachment vote triggers a trial in Congress’s upper chamber, the Senate, on whether to convict.
A conviction, which immediately removes the official from office, requires at least two-thirds support in the Senate. That means Democrats, even with their incoming majority in the chamber next year, would likely need about a dozen Republicans to join them to secure Hegseth’s removal.
Only eight officials – all federal judges – have ever been convicted by the Senate. Trump has been impeached twice – in December 2019 and January 2021 – but the Senate acquitted him on both occasions.
