Full disclosure: A quarter century ago, Pete Hegseth was my intern at Family Research Council. I have followed his career, especially at Fox News, though we have had no direct contact since he left FRC. I respect his willingness to speak openly about his Christian faith.

That history inclines me toward a favorable view of Pete, and readers should weigh my argument with that in mind. Yet neither an old association nor respect for a man’s faith can excuse wrongdoing. The question is whether the latest effort to impeach Hegseth rests on evidence of serious misconduct or reflects the political hostility now routine in Washington.

At a Pentagon briefing Tuesday, Hegseth called the impeachment effort led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) “a political spectacle, a personal manifesto driven by ego and resentment.” The charge has some history behind it. Hegseth campaigned for the Trump-backed challenger who defeated Massie in Kentucky’s May primary.

Motive, however, does not settle the matter. Evidence does.

The Constitution Sets a High Standard

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides for the removal of the president, vice president, and civil officers of the United States upon impeachment and conviction for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The Founders did not intend impeachment to become a parliamentary vote of no confidence. They established a remedy for grave abuses of public trust. An impeachable offense need not be a prosecutable crime, but not every contested use of executive authority is grounds for removal.

Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 65, described impeachable offenses as those arising from the misconduct of public men and the abuse or violation of some public trust. He also warned that such prosecutions would agitate the passions of the whole community. This week proves him right.

After Democrats won both chambers in last week’s midterms, Massie reintroduced eight articles he first filed in September, forcing the House to act within two legislative days. They charge Hegseth with waging the Iran war in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, ignoring laws meant to limit civilian casualties, ordering lethal strikes on suspected drug boats, seizing Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro without legal authority, conducting unauthorized operations in Yemen, and retaliating against Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

These are serious accusations, particularly those involving civilians, lethal force, and retaliation against a sitting senator. They go beyond disputes over strategy. But Massie’s resolution states allegations; it does not establish that Hegseth personally committed the misconduct charged. Congress must distinguish among disputed policies, errors of judgment, unlawful acts, and abuses of public trust serious enough to warrant impeachment. That requires evidence, not political conviction.

Who Makes the Decisions?

Under Article II, Section 2, the president is commander in chief. The secretary of War serves under him and carries out lawful presidential decisions. Congress holds formidable powers of its own: to declare war, appropriate funds, make rules for the armed forces, and conduct oversight.

Massie’s War Powers charges raise genuine constitutional and statutory questions. Hegseth insists every operation was lawful and ordered by the commander in chief. Only evidence can settle that dispute.

Every Army lieutenant learns that obedience to orders has limits. A lawful order must be carried out; a manifestly unlawful one must not. In command, I learned those limits carry real consequences for soldiers and civilians alike. Hegseth cannot escape accountability by pointing to the commander in chief. Nor can Congress hold him personally responsible merely because it disputes President Trump’s decisions. Lawmakers must establish what Hegseth ordered, what he knew, and whether his conduct seriously abused his office. That is the case Congress must make.

Is Hegseth the Real Target?

Massie’s own words suggest the answer is both Hegseth and President Trump. Asked why he had not introduced articles of impeachment against Trump, he said the president needed to see one of his horses “shot out from under him.” That metaphor signals that removing Hegseth is meant, at least in part, as a message to the president. In his November 9 announcement, Massie also called his resolution “a much gentler version of what’s coming when the Democrats assume control of the House and Senate next year.”

That candor does not prove his allegations unfounded. But impeachment of a prominent cabinet secretary quickly becomes a referendum on the president who appointed him, which demands constitutional restraint. America cannot afford a system in which impeachment becomes the routine response to an election result or a policy the opposition dislikes.

Faith, Character, and Accountability

Pete Hegseth has been unusually outspoken about his Christian faith and has tied his service to convictions about God, duty, and responsibility. I take that seriously. But Christians must never confuse a profession of faith with proof of innocence.

Scripture holds those entrusted with authority accountable for how they use it. Romans 13:1-4 describes civil government as God’s servant for restraining wrongdoing, and Micah 6:8 calls us “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” Those standards bind Hegseth, his critics, members of Congress, and the president alike.

Christian charity does not require us to overlook wrongdoing, nor does Christian justice permit us to presume guilt. Scripture forbids false witness, commands impartial judgment, and reminds us that “the one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). Those obligations do not change with party affiliation.

The Country Deserves Better

Our troops deserve civilian leaders who are accountable, competent, and committed to the Constitution. But impeachment must never substitute for the hard work of proving wrongdoing.

Pete Hegseth has made enemies in Washington. But making enemies is not an impeachable offense. If Hegseth has seriously abused his office, Congress should establish the facts and make its case. If lawmakers disagree with the president’s military policies, they can wield the power of the purse and war powers legislation without resorting to impeachment.

I knew Pete Hegseth long before he entered the Pentagon. I respect his Christian convictions, but neither our past association nor our shared faith determines whether he should remain in office. The Constitution, the evidence, and the seriousness of the alleged misconduct must govern that judgment. The standard we apply to our opponents must be the standard we accept for our friends.