"🚨 HOUSE SHOCKER: VOTE HALTED AS SPEAKER JOHNSON MAKES A DRASTIC IMPEACHMENT MOVE!"
House Republican leaders sent lawmakers home a day earlier than planned Wednesday, postponing a potentially contentious vote on impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth until after the November midterm elections.
Votes that had been scheduled for Thursday were canceled as Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., began the House’s pre-election recess.
Lawmakers are not scheduled to return to Washington until the post-election lame-duck session.
The schedule change means the House will not immediately consider eight articles of impeachment introduced Tuesday by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
Massie filed the impeachment measure as a privileged resolution, a procedural designation that normally requires House leaders to address it within two legislative days.
A floor vote had therefore been expected Thursday before GOP leaders eliminated the final voting day.
Massie accuses Hegseth of committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” through a series of military and administrative actions, including the continuing U.S. conflict with Iran.
The first three articles center on the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Massie argues that the administration has conducted hostilities against Iran without obtaining the congressional authorization he says is required under federal law.
Other articles accuse Hegseth of wrongdoing related to military strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels, Pentagon action involving Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, the U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and military operations in Yemen.
The allegations are Massie’s; the Pentagon has rejected his characterization and defended Hegseth’s leadership.
Johnson dismissed Massie’s impeachment effort as a “stunt” and said Wednesday that the House had completed its work before lawmakers left to campaign.
“The House has done its job,” Johnson said, while noting members could be recalled to Washington on 48 hours’ notice if necessary.
Massie strongly objected to the early departure, using an extended floor speech to accuse House leadership of abandoning unfinished business.
“We’re calling off Congress? And we’re in the majority?” Massie said. He argued lawmakers should remain in Washington to debate the impeachment resolution as well as other unresolved issues.
Johnson, however, pointed to the volume of legislation approved by the Republican-controlled House and has described the current Congress as among the most productive in decades.
Before leaving Washington Wednesday, the House completed several major votes, including passage of a broad sanctions package targeting Russia over its war in Ukraine.
Lawmakers also approved legislation addressing the growing electricity demands associated with large data centers.
The Hegseth resolution arrives as disagreements over the Iran conflict have become increasingly visible in Congress.
The chamber also recently approved a War Powers Resolution directing President Donald Trump to end U.S. participation in hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes continued military action. Seven Republicans joined Democrats in passing that measure 220-204.
Massie has been among the most outspoken Republican critics of the Iran conflict and has argued that Congress must assert its constitutional authority over decisions involving war.
His confrontation with Johnson comes during Massie’s final months in Congress.
The Kentucky Republican lost his primary election after Trump backed an effort to defeat him. Massie has nevertheless continued pursuing measures that put him at odds with the administration and Republican leadership, including the Hegseth impeachment resolution and efforts related to the Epstein investigation.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries also criticized the decision to recess, arguing that Congress had not sufficiently addressed affordability and other domestic concerns.
Johnson rejected those criticisms, pointing to legislation passed during the current Congress and saying Republicans were leaving Washington confident in their record.
The House is now expected to remain away from Washington through the final stretch of the midterm campaign unless Johnson recalls lawmakers under the 48-hour notice arrangement.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
