By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST
This week, the House of Representatives faces a question that goes well beyond Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: Who decides when America goes to war?
The question comes from an unlikely source. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has introduced eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth. Under House rules, his resolution requires action within two legislative days. House members may vote on impeachment or move to set the resolution aside. Either way, they will have to take a position.
Here in Fredericksburg, this is not an abstract argument about Washington politics. Our region includes Marines at Quantico, Navy personnel and civilian specialists at Dahlgren, military retirees, defense contractors, and families whose sons and daughters serve around the world. When political leaders commit American forces to war, these are among the people who bear the consequences. They deserve to know that the decisions were made lawfully and that Congress has done its job.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and the president authority as commander in chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 attempts to establish how those responsibilities work together. It generally requires the president to end unauthorized hostilities within 60 days, with up to 30 additional days for withdrawal. Presidents of both parties have disputed aspects of that law, but the underlying constitutional question remains: How much authority can a president exercise without Congress?
Massie’s impeachment resolution brings that question directly before the House.
Three of his eight charges concern the war with Iran. He alleges that Hegseth helped initiate hostilities without congressional authorization, continued fighting after Congress directed the withdrawal of American forces, and disregarded the War Powers Resolution’s time limits. Other charges involve military operations in Yemen and Venezuela, civilian casualties, lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers, and alleged retaliation against a senator who questioned unlawful military orders.
These are serious allegations, not established findings. The administration disputes Massie’s interpretation of the law. It argues, among other things, that the April ceasefire interrupted the statutory timetable and that Congress’s June concurrent resolution did not have the force of law. Hegseth dismisses the impeachment effort as political theater.
Those disagreements deserve examination. That is precisely why we have Congress.
I spent much of my working life in military and federal service. One lesson stayed with me: Institutions depend on people understanding their responsibilities and respecting the limits of their authority. Political leaders make policy decisions within the law. Military commanders carry out lawful orders. Career professionals provide expertise, continuity, and honest advice. Each has responsibilities that cannot simply be passed to someone else.
When military personnel receive orders, they are expected to carry them out unless those orders are unlawful. We should expect no less respect for the law from the civilian leaders who issue them.
The human consequences are substantial. More than eight months of conflict with Iran have placed demands on military personnel, their families, equipment, and readiness. Those costs are felt in communities like ours, even when the fighting takes place thousands of miles away.
But there is another cost that receives less attention: what happens when Congress gradually gives away its constitutional authority.
Over several decades, presidents of both parties have expanded their use of military force without formal declarations of war. Congress has often objected, debated, or passed resolutions without effectively asserting its own authority. The result is an increasingly familiar pattern: Presidents act, Congress reacts, and the American people are left watching decisions they were supposed to influence through their elected representatives.
Impeachment is one possible response, but it is not the only one. Congress can hold hearings, demand information, restrict funding, enact legislation, and investigate executive actions. Those powers exist regardless of which party controls the presidency.
Hegseth may survive this week’s vote. Even if the House impeaches him, removal would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate. But the outcome should not be the only measure of whether Congress has fulfilled its responsibility.
I would ask every House member to do three things.
First, address the substance of Massie’s allegations rather than simply dismissing them as partisan politics. Second, explain to constituents which charges they accept or reject and why. Third, tell the American people what Congress intends to do about its constitutional authority over war, regardless of the impeachment outcome.
And I would ask Fredericksburg-area residents to do something as well. Contact your representative before the vote. The Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. Ask whether Congress should have a meaningful role in deciding when American forces go to war, and what your representative intends to do to protect that role.
You do not have to support Massie or oppose Hegseth to ask that question. You do not even have to oppose the war. You only have to believe that our constitutional system requires elected officials to exercise the responsibilities entrusted to them.
Massie leaves Congress in January. The question he raised will remain.
When Congress lets its war power slip away, our voice slips away with it.
***
Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel and former federal civil servant who writes about civic education, public accountability and national security. He lives in Fredericksburg.
