Massie Draft Impeachment Article V: Extrajudicial Killings

ARTICLE V: EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that civil Officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—especially with regard to the commission of war—has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that:

Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that chilled independent legal review within the Department of Defense, constructed a purported legal basis for the use of military force without constitutional or statutory authorization, and displaced longstanding precedent and codified maritime law-enforcement practices that are jurisdictionally assigned to Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies, by substituting in such place the use of summary lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps elements. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also oversaw orders denying quarter and failing to provide rescue, including secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors, who were hors de combat, and the abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, thereby endangering members of the our Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment.

By subjecting persons merely suspected of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process, without Congressional authorization, and without establishing a lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military targets, Secretary Hegseth arrogated to himself and the Executive Branch the roles of judge, jury, and executioner and asserted a unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die. Such a power is foreign to the rule of law, repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United States and the Western world, and contrary to United States law and customary international law. This conduct undermined the integrity and credibility of the United States and its Armed Forces, damaged the diplomatic standing of the United States, and injured the interests of the Nation.

Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) Secretary Hegseth authorized strikes, beginning on September 2, 2025, without authorization from Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, and in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, as provided in chapter 33 of title 50, United States Code.

(2) Secretary Hegseth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in international waters, comprising at least 63 separate attack events—44 in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 17 in the Caribbean Sea, and 2 in unspecified locations—which struck 67 vessels and killed at least 221 individuals. In doing so:

(A) Secretary Hegseth displaced the statutory framework established by sections 70503 and 70504 of title 46, United States Code, under which Congress expressly treated maritime narcotics offenses, including conduct occurring on the high seas, as federal crimes subject to apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States district court, and instead treated such offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting.

(B) Secretary Hegseth disregarded the statutory restrictions in sections 274 and 275 of title 10, United States Code, governing direct participation by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in civilian law enforcement activities, including federal narcotics enforcement, by employing lethal military force against persons suspected of drug trafficking absent any congressionally enacted authorization for the use of military force or other statutory authorization for such direct military action.

(C) Secretary Hegseth disregarded the maritime law-enforcement framework established by sections 102 and 522 of title 14, United States Code, as well as section 279 of title 10, United States Code, under which only the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure, and arrest, and he did so by directing members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in place of the law-enforcement processes.

(3) Secretary Hegseth established targeting guidelines for such strikes on August 5, 2025, by issuing an Execute Order (EXORD) directing the use of United States military force against persons alleged to be members or affiliates of certain "Designated Terrorist Organizations" (DTOs) as follows:

(A) Secretary Hegseth established guidelines that:

(i) used "Designated Terrorist Organizations" as a targeting category, notwithstanding that term is not a congressionally created designation conferring authority to use military force;

(ii) did not require positive identification of any targeted person but instead required only "reasonable certainty" that such person was a member or affiliate of a designated DTO, a threshold lower than the "near certainty" standard established for drone strikes on suspected al-Qaeda militants during the congressionally authorized Global War on Terror; and

(iii) did not require the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in association with a DTO.

(4) Secretary Hegseth, in the course of such strikes, oversaw orders resulting in the denial of quarter to, and the failure to provide timely rescue for, shipwrecked survivors of initial strikes, including:

(A) On September 2, 2025, during the first strike of the campaign, the United States Navy attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela and the nearby Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel. Approximately 45 minutes later, while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a secondary strike was ordered, killing both survivors. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of the our Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment

(B) On December 30, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels approximately 400 nautical miles southwest of Ocos, Guatemala, in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, killing 3 persons and leaving 8 others shipwrecked. Although the campaign had been underway for approximately four months, no recovery assets had been prepositioned to rescue survivors. Rescue assets did not arrive until approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all 8 shipwrecked survivors had died at sea. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of the our Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment

(5) Secretary Hegseth took actions to preempt, constrain, and overcome independent legal objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including:

(A) Secretary Hegseth removed the senior-most Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably chilling the exercise of independent legal judgement by judge advocates tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness of combat operations, and subsequently stating at a Pentagon Press conference on February 25, 2025, he did not want military lawyers to serve as "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief."

(B) Secretary Hegseth employed an interagency group of lawyers, comprising four career officials and four political appointees from the Department of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel, to develop a classified memorandum purporting to establish a legal basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections to their execution, falsely asserting that:

(i) the United States is engaged in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with 24 Latin American Designated Terrorist Organizations (DTOs), thereby attempting to displace the governing law-enforcement framework, as established in paragraph (2), and substitute an armed-conflict framework for the conduct of military operations against such organizations, despite the absence of congressional authorization for such military action, notwithstanding that—

(I) pursuant to Little v. Barreme (1804), and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014), an Executive Branch legal memorandum cannot enlarge authority conferred by Congress or legalize conduct otherwise unauthorized by statute;

(ii) the strikes do not constitute "hostilities" within the meaning of chapter 33 of title 50, United States Code, because they do not place United States personnel in danger, presumptively on the basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense—a predicate that would likewise mean that any military action conducted by drone, or any airstrike against a target lacking air-defense capabilities, could also not constitute "hostilities"; and

(iii) the DTOs are engaged in armed violence against the security forces of allied nations, including Mexico, and such violence is financed through cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against cocaine shipments and the deaths of persons aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage; a rationale inconsistent with the EXORD targeting guidelines described in paragraph (3), which did not require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel and instead authorized targeting based on alleged DTO membership or affiliation.

Secretary Hegseth abused the authority and trust vested in him as Secretary of Defense not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force, resulting in the summary execution of at least 221 persons in international waters, but also by using his office to compel members of the Armed Forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be constructed and imposed upon the chain of command. In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hegseth endangered members of the United States Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to such treatment

Secretary Hegseth further endangered United States law-enforcement personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established maritime law-enforcement practices of interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution. By demonstrating that vessels merely suspected of narcotics trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicted and arrested, Secretary Hegseth foreseeably increased the likelihood that persons aboard such vessels will perceive future encounters with United States authorities as threats to their lives and respond with lethal force rather than surrender. In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign but also made lawful enforcement of United States narcotics laws at sea more dangerous for the Coast Guard and other federal personnel charged with carrying them out.

In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America.

Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of United States diplomacy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.