"PETE HEGSETH GETS NIGHTMARE NEWS FROM HIS OWN PARTY: The Shocking Blow Revealed!"
Massie Targets Hegseth With Impeachment Articles as Epstein Transparency Fight Deepens GOP Divisions
The Kentucky Republican has filed eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth while separately joining Rep. Ro Khanna in a renewed effort to enforce federal disclosure requirements for Jeffrey Epstein-related records. Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision to send the House home early has delayed both fights until after the midterm elections.
WASHINGTON — Rep. Thomas Massie has opened one of the sharpest intra-Republican confrontations of the 119th Congress, filing eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth while simultaneously pressing House leaders to allow another vote related to the government’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein records.
The Kentucky Republican introduced the impeachment resolution on the House floor on September 15, 2026, accusing Hegseth of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and arguing that the secretary has repeatedly exceeded constitutional and statutory limits on the use of military force. Massie’s central charge concerns the continuing U.S. conflict with Iran, which began with U.S.-Israeli strikes on February 28.
The first three impeachment articles focus on the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Massie argues that U.S. forces have remained engaged in hostilities involving Iran well beyond the law’s 60-day period and additional 30-day withdrawal window without a declaration of war or other congressional authorization.
Massie said Hegseth had engaged in hostilities for more than 90 days without obtaining congressional approval and had disregarded congressional attempts to terminate the fighting. The impeachment resolution is a privileged measure, a procedural status that ordinarily allows its sponsor to force relatively rapid House consideration.
The constitutional and statutory dispute is not uncontested. The Trump administration rejects Massie’s interpretation of the War Powers Resolution and maintains that its military actions have remained lawful. Administration officials have argued that different phases of the conflict, cease-fire periods and subsequent flare-ups do not support the continuous 90-day clock described by Massie.
Attorney General Todd Blanche defended Hegseth after the impeachment filing, saying the defense secretary follows the law and disputing the characterization of the current military activity as an ongoing “war.” Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson separately called Hegseth a “transformative leader” and said the department remained united behind him.
The administration’s terminology has itself become part of the political argument. In early September, Vice President JD Vance said he would not describe the intermittent fighting as a war because there was not active shooting at that moment. President Donald Trump later defended that description and referred to the conflict as “small potatoes” compared with larger historical wars, while describing current U.S. strikes as intermittent.
Those statements do not determine the legal question. Whether military activity constitutes “hostilities” for purposes of the War Powers Resolution is a legal and institutional dispute, not something resolved merely by the administration’s choice of terminology. Congress and the executive branch have disagreed for decades over the reach and enforceability of the 1973 statute.
Massie’s case also relies on an unusual congressional backdrop. The House approved an Iran War Powers concurrent resolution on June 3 by 215-208, and the Senate later approved the same measure 50-48 on June 23. The resolution directed the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran under Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution.
The administration disputed the legal force of that measure, while its supporters argued that passage by both chambers represented a binding congressional direction under the statute. The House subsequently approved additional Iran war-powers measures, including another resolution in July and a third measure on September 15 by 220-204.
Massie’s impeachment effort therefore does not arise solely from his personal opposition to the conflict. Congress has repeatedly voted on whether U.S. military operations in Iran should continue without a separate authorization, even though those votes have not produced an agreed end to the fighting.
The Iran allegations are only part of Massie’s 34-page impeachment resolution. The eight articles also accuse Hegseth of misconduct involving military operations in Yemen, strikes on vessels accused of drug trafficking, the U.S. operation that seized former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, civilian-casualty safeguards and alleged retaliation against political critics.
Those are allegations contained in Massie’s impeachment resolution, not findings of guilt. Removing a Cabinet officer through impeachment would require the House to approve one or more articles and the Senate to convict by the constitutionally required two-thirds vote. There is currently no indication that Massie has anywhere close to the votes needed for Hegseth’s removal.
The impeachment push nevertheless has political significance because it is coming from a Republican lawmaker against a Cabinet secretary serving a Republican president. Massie has long broken with Trump and GOP leadership on war powers, spending and foreign policy, and he is now serving the final months of his term after losing a Republican primary to Trump-backed candidate Ed Gallrein.
Massie deliberately did not warn Republican leaders before reading the impeachment articles on the House floor. He later told CNN that he feared leadership might alter the schedule to prevent him from triggering the privileged process. He linked that concern to earlier fights over his efforts to force House votes on Epstein-related records.
A day after the impeachment filing, Speaker Mike Johnson canceled the House’s planned Thursday voting session and sent members home for the pre-election recess. The decision means the House is expected to be away from Washington for more than six weeks, delaying consideration of Massie’s impeachment effort until after the November 3 midterm elections.
Massie accused Johnson of manipulating the House calendar to avoid politically difficult votes. Johnson rejected that charge, called the Hegseth impeachment effort a “publicity stunt,” and said the House had completed substantial legislative work before members returned to their districts to campaign.
That disagreement should not be confused with a proven cover-up. It is established that Johnson’s schedule changes delayed the Hegseth impeachment process and slowed Massie’s Epstein-related strategy; it is not established that the Speaker changed the calendar specifically to protect Trump or any person associated with Epstein. Johnson has denied that characterization.
The Epstein dispute is also more complicated than some online descriptions suggest. Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna have been working together on H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, a follow-up to disclosure legislation that became law in 2025.
The new proposal was introduced after Massie and Khanna accused the Justice Department of failing to comply fully with the earlier transparency law. They say the department has continued to withhold large quantities of responsive material and has used redactions more broadly than Congress authorized.
H.R. 9694 would not simply order the government to publish every Epstein-related document completely unredacted for the general public. Instead, the bill is designed primarily to create stronger enforcement mechanisms for the existing disclosure law.
According to the bill’s sponsors and the published legislative text, the measure would give state attorneys general, certain state and local prosecutors, members of Congress and Epstein victims legal standing to challenge the attorney general over allegedly unlawful withholding, delay or redaction of records.
The legislation would also give victims access to full, unredacted records concerning themselves or the harm they suffered, and it would allow state and local prosecutors to obtain unredacted records needed for investigations and prosecutions, including secure access to classified material where appropriate.
That is materially different from saying that every name in every investigative document would automatically be published without redaction. The Justice Department’s existing Epstein library continues to redact victim names and identifying information, and legitimate privacy protections for survivors remain a central concern in the disclosure process.
Khanna and Massie filed a discharge strategy to bypass House leadership and force consideration of the new legislation. A discharge petition requires 218 signatures from House members before it can compel floor action under House rules.
By mid-September, the petition had accumulated a large number of Democratic signatures along with several Republicans. Massie and Khanna later said they had secured commitments sufficient to reach the 218-member threshold, although the formal House Clerk list did not immediately reflect every promised signature before lawmakers left Washington.
The effort has become another source of friction between Massie and Johnson. Massie says that shortening the House calendar deprives lawmakers of the in-person legislative days needed to gather signatures and force action. Johnson and Republican leaders have rejected claims that recess scheduling is intended to suppress Epstein-related votes.
Khanna has also used sharper rhetoric in criticizing what he sees as institutional resistance to further disclosure. But claims that specific political leaders are protecting an “Epstein class” or shielding named public figures remain political accusations unless supported by evidence tied to particular records or conduct.
The same distinction applies to references to Trump. A person appearing in Epstein-related records, contact books, photographs, flight records or other investigative material does not by itself establish criminal wrongdoing. Any claim of criminal conduct would require evidence of the underlying acts, not merely an association or a name appearing in records.
The political stakes are heightened because the Epstein issue has generated unusual bipartisan pressure. Republicans and Democrats have both demanded additional disclosure, and the first transparency law ultimately attracted overwhelming congressional support. The current dispute is less about whether any records should be released than about whether the Justice Department has complied with the disclosure rules Congress already enacted and what legal tools should exist to enforce them.
Massie’s two campaigns — impeaching Hegseth and strengthening Epstein disclosure enforcement — are legally separate. One concerns executive war powers and the constitutional accountability of a Cabinet officer; the other concerns congressional oversight, public records and enforcement of a federal transparency statute.
Politically, however, they have converged around the same institutional fight: how much power House leadership should have to prevent or delay votes that expose divisions inside the majority party. Massie argues that rank-and-file members should be able to force recorded votes on both questions. Johnson maintains that leadership must manage the House calendar and has dismissed the impeachment effort as unserious.
The early recess means neither fight is likely to be resolved before voters go to the polls. When the House returns after the midterm elections, leadership could move to table Massie’s impeachment resolution rather than allow a direct vote on the articles themselves. The Epstein discharge effort will likewise depend on whether the required signatures are formally recorded and whether procedural waiting periods are satisfied.
For Hegseth, the immediate threat of removal remains remote. Massie’s articles are politically significant because a Republican has formally accused a Republican administration’s defense secretary of impeachable misconduct, not because impeachment currently appears likely to succeed.
For the Epstein legislation, the key factual issue is similarly narrower than the rhetoric: Massie and Khanna are trying to create stronger legal remedies for alleged noncompliance with an existing disclosure law, not simply publish millions of completely unredacted investigative records on the open internet.
And for Speaker Johnson, the central dispute is one of motive. His decision to shorten the House schedule unquestionably postponed difficult business. Whether that was ordinary election-year scheduling, an effort to shield members from politically painful votes, or some combination of considerations remains contested between Johnson and his critics.
The larger story is therefore not a single proven conspiracy inside Congress. It is a visible fracture within the Republican majority over presidential war powers, executive accountability, congressional transparency and the ability of dissident lawmakers to force issues onto the House floor. Massie has placed all of those disputes into the same pre-election spotlight — but the evidence supports a more complicated picture than claims of a confirmed “cover-up.”
"🚨 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.
