{"schema_version":1,"citation_url":"https://567politics.com/news/house-refers-hegseth-impeachment-judiciary-211-204-eleven-democrats-november-2026","title":"House shelves Hegseth impeachment 211-204 after 11 Democrats miss the vote","description":"The roll call was a motion to send the articles to the Judiciary Committee, not a vote on removing the defense secretary. Seven Republicans also did not vote.","author":"567 Politics staff","publisher":"567politics","date_published":"2026-11-11T02:04:53.407932Z","date_modified":"2026-11-11T02:05:59.00832Z","body_markdown":"The House did not vote on Tuesday on whether to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. It voted 211-204 to send [H. Res. 1655](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2026317), the privileged impeachment resolution offered by Rep. [Thomas Massie](https://567politics.com/politicians/thomas-massie), to the Judiciary Committee, according to the [official roll call](https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2026/roll317.xml) posted by the clerk of the House. The motion passed at 6:02 p.m. Eastern. Eighteen members did not vote, including 11 Democrats and seven Republicans.\n\nThat distinction matters because a wave of posts on X, including one from [Drop Site News](https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2120317641331978533) that quoted commentator Jordan Uhl, described the absences as the reason Republicans \"successfully sent\" the impeachment effort to committee, \"where it will collect dust.\" The clerk's record confirms the 11 Democratic names circulating online. It also shows that the question on the floor was \"On Motion to Refer,\" not adoption of the articles. Even if every absent Democrat had voted no, the House would still have needed a second majority to impeach Hegseth, and 210 Republicans plus one independent had just voted to take the resolution off the floor.\n\nhttps://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2120317641331978533\n\n## The roll call was a referral, not an impeachment\n\nMassie, a Kentucky Republican who lost his 2026 primary to a challenger backed by President Donald Trump and Hegseth, had used a privileged procedure that forced the House to act within two legislative days after he [reread the articles on the floor](https://567politics.com/news/massie-reads-hegseth-impeachment-articles-house-floor-november-2026). The clerk's floor record for Nov. 10 shows that Massie raised a question of the privileges of the House at 4:17 p.m. and that the chair ruled the resolution was privileged. At 5:34 p.m., Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, moved to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. The House then proceeded with debate on that motion. The previous question was ordered without objection at 5:35 p.m., and the yeas and nays were recorded at 6:02 p.m.\n\nA \"yea\" was a vote to send the articles to committee. A \"nay\" was a vote to keep the resolution on the floor. The clerk recorded 211 yeas, 204 nays and 18 members not voting. Republicans voted 210-1, with Massie the only Republican \"nay.\" All 203 Democrats who voted were recorded as \"nay.\" The clerk recorded one independent yea: Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, the only member listed as Independent on the roll call.\n\n```chart\ntype: column\nstacked: yes\ntitle: House roll call 317 on the motion to refer H. Res. 1655, Nov. 10, 2026\nsource: [U.S. House Clerk, roll call 317](https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2026/roll317.xml)\nnote: The independent yea is Rep. Kevin Kiley of California. Massie was the only Republican nay.\n---\nParty | Yea | Nay | Not voting\nRepublican | 210 | 1 | 7\nDemocratic | 0 | 203 | 11\nIndependent | 1 | 0 | 0\n```\n\nReferring a privileged impeachment resolution to committee, in a Republican-controlled House that is weeks from handing the majority to Democrats, is a standard way to take it off the floor for the rest of the Congress. It is not a judgment on the merits of the eight articles, and it is not an acquittal. Trump described the result on Truth Social as an \"EXONERATION of a Great American Patriot,\" according to [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-led-house-rejects-hegseth-impeachment-effort-rcna608534). The clerk's question presented does not use that word.\n\n```diagram\ntype: timeline\ntitle: How the Hegseth impeachment resolution reached a referral vote\nsource: [U.S. House Clerk floor record and roll call 317](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2026317), [Massie press release, Nov. 9, 2026](https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395863)\n---\n2026-11-09: Massie offers privileged articles of impeachment, restarting a two-day clock for House action\n2026-11-10 16:17: Massie raises a question of privilege; the chair rules H. Res. 1655 is privileged\n2026-11-10 17:34: Rep. Darrell Issa moves to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee\n2026-11-10 18:02: The House agrees to the motion, 211-204, with 18 members not voting\n```\n\n## The 11 Democrats, and the seven Republicans, who did not vote\n\nThe clerk listed these 11 Democrats as not voting: Reps. Julia Brownley of California, Lou Correa of California, Laura Gillen of New York, Steven Horsford of Nevada, Jonathan Jackson of Illinois, [Nancy Pelosi](https://567politics.com/politicians/nancy-pelosi) of California, Brittany Pettersen of Colorado, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, [Haley Stevens](https://567politics.com/politicians/haley-stevens) of Michigan, Marilyn Strickland of Washington and Frederica Wilson of Florida.\n\nDrop Site's post named the first eight of those members in its visible text and quoted Uhl's post, which said 11 Democrats, \"including Pelosi,\" did not vote. The remaining three names in the clerk's list — Jackson, Strickland and Wilson — match the lists later circulated by other accounts and by outlets that opened the roll call. The post did not invent the eight names it showed. It also did not, in the text that appeared on X, list all 11.\n\nThree of the 11 offices have given public explanations. None of those explanations has been independently verified beyond the offices' own accounts, and the clerk's roll call records only that they did not vote.\n\nCorrea said the day before the vote that doctors had told him not to travel while he recovered from an undisclosed medical procedure he had \"put off for awhile,\" [City News Service reported](https://mynewsla.com/orange-county/2026/11/09/rep-correa-announces-medical-procedure-to-keep-him-grounded-a-short-time/) on Nov. 9. He said he would work from his district office in Orange County. He also said he did not anticipate many critical votes before the new Congress is sworn in, then added, \"Other than the (Defense Secretary Pete) Hegseth impeachment, there's nothing else. So this is a good time to take care of this medical procedure.\"\n\nPettersen, who had helped introduce earlier articles of impeachment against Hegseth, said after the vote that she \"was denied the ability to vote on this motion while Mike Johnson worked overtime to shield him from accountability.\"\n\nhttps://x.com/RepPettersen/status/2120332450542866940\n\nA spokesperson in her office told [Colorado Newsline](https://coloradonewsline.com/2026/11/10/repub/gop-blocks-impeach-hegseth/) that \"there was an accident near the Capitol, and some members were stuck in traffic when Republicans cynically closed the vote early,\" and that Pettersen \"supports the impeachment of Hegseth.\" The clerk's floor record shows the previous question on the referral motion was ordered at 5:35 p.m. and the result was announced at 6:02 p.m., a span of 27 minutes. House votes are often open for 15 minutes and can be held longer or closed sooner at the chair's direction. This reporting has not independently confirmed an accident, the length of any delay, or a decision to close the vote earlier than usual.\n\nStrickland's spokesperson, Siena Miller, told [The Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/house-blocks-hegseth-impeachment-effort-strickland-absent/) that \"the Congresswoman was stuck behind a motorcade and missed the vote by 1 minute.\" Strickland has said she supports impeaching Hegseth, the newspaper reported. This reporting has not confirmed the motorcade or the one-minute margin.\n\nAs of late Tuesday evening, this reporting did not find a public explanation from the offices of Pelosi, Stevens, Brownley, Gillen, Horsford, Jackson, Stansbury or Wilson. Uhl wrote that Pelosi \"has been making the rounds on the Hill today to talk to press.\" That is his account. It has not been corroborated here, and it would not, by itself, establish why she was recorded as not voting.\n\nThe seven Republicans recorded as not voting were Reps. Monica De La Cruz of Texas, Neal Dunn of Florida, Russell Fry of South Carolina, Julia Letlow of Louisiana, Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin and Rudy Yakym of Indiana. This reporting did not find public explanations from those offices on Tuesday evening.\n\n| Member | Party | Recorded vote | Office explanation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Lou Correa | D-Calif. | Not voting | Medical procedure; doctors advised no travel |\n| Brittany Pettersen | D-Colo. | Not voting | Traffic after an accident; vote \"closed early\" |\n| Marilyn Strickland | D-Wash. | Not voting | Stuck behind a motorcade; missed by 1 minute |\n| 8 other Democrats | D | Not voting | No public explanation found Tuesday |\n| 7 Republicans | R | Not voting | No public explanation found Tuesday |\n\nThe table summarizes attributed office statements and the clerk's record. The first three explanations are the members' or their staff's accounts, reported by City News Service, Colorado Newsline and The Seattle Times. They are not independent findings.\n\n## What the absences could change, and what they could not\n\nThe referral passed by seven votes, 211-204. In the House, a motion fails on a tie because it has not received a majority. Holding every other recorded vote fixed, seven additional \"nay\" votes would have made the roll call 211-211, and the motion would have failed. Eight additional \"nays\" would have made it 211-212. All 11 absent Democrats voting \"nay\" would have made it 211-215.\n\nThat arithmetic is why critics of [House Democratic](https://567politics.com/parties/united-states/democratic) Leader [Hakeem Jeffries](https://567politics.com/politicians/hakeem-jeffries) said the absences were decisive, and why some posts claimed that \"just seven\" of the 11 Democrats could have flipped the result. The second half of the viral claim does not follow from the first.\n\nDefeating the referral would have kept the impeachment resolution on the floor. It would not have impeached Hegseth. The House would still have had to adopt the articles by a simple majority. The same 210 Republicans and Kiley who voted to refer the resolution were available, if they voted the same way, to vote the articles down. Whether any of those members would have switched on a direct impeachment vote is unknown. It is not a fact that can be read off roll call 317.\n\nThe seven absent Republicans cut the other way. If those members had been present and voted yea, as almost every other Republican did, the referral could have passed even if all 11 Democrats had voted nay (218-215, if every other vote stayed the same). The Democratic absences were large enough to be decisive only if the Republican absences are taken as they actually occurred. Posts that treat the 11 Democrats as the sole cause, or that convert a failed referral into an automatic impeachment, are collapsing those steps.\n\nSome posts went further and said that if the 11 Democrats \"had showed up, Hegseth would've been impeached 215-211.\" That tally appears to add the 11 absences to the 204 nays and treat the result as a vote on the articles. The clerk's record does not support that reading.\n\nA separate line of posts argued that the 11 Democrats had all received significant money from pro-Israel advocacy groups, including AIPAC, and implied that the money explained the missed votes. Campaign contributions, including money from [pro-Israel PACs](https://567politics.com/news/democrats-aipac-pac-top-recipients-2024-2026-fec-november-2026), do not by themselves establish why a member missed a roll call, and they do not prove a bargain over impeachment. The dollar figures attached to individual names in those posts were not independently verified for this story. Correa had already said he could not travel. Pettersen's and Strickland's offices gave logistical explanations. Those accounts may be incomplete, but they are the explanations on the record, and they do not mention donor pressure.\n\n## What the articles charge, and how Hegseth answered\n\nMassie's resolution contains eight articles. His [Nov. 9 press release](https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395863) summarizes them as follows. Articles I through III charge Hegseth with waging the [Iran war](https://567politics.com/news/iran-war-midterms-voter-poll-wrong-decision-trump-part-of-it-congress-november-2026) in violation of three sections of the War Powers Resolution of 1973: initiating hostilities without a declaration of war, statutory authorization, an attack on the United States or an imminent threat; continuing the war after both chambers directed the removal of U.S. forces through H. Con. Res. 86; and continuing hostilities after the law's 60-day termination period, and any 30-day withdrawal period, had expired. Article IV charges him with ignoring laws meant to minimize civilian casualties. Article V charges \"extrajudicial killings\" in a campaign of lethal strikes on suspected drug traffickers at sea, \"resulting in at least 243 deaths,\" and also addresses secondary strikes on survivors and an alleged failure to rescue shipwrecked persons. Article VI charges him with using Defense Department authority to retaliate against Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona for speech questioning unlawful orders. Article VII charges him with directing the operation that seized Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores in Venezuela without constitutional or legal authority. Article VIII charges an unlawful war in Yemen.\n\nThose are Massie's allegations, set out in a resolution the House did not adopt. They are not findings by a court or by the House. Massie said in the same release that \"by engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization, Secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable,\" and that his effort was \"a much gentler version of what's coming when the Democrats assume control of the House and Senate next year.\" On Tuesday he told colleagues on X, before the vote, that a procedural vote to \"derail\" the resolution by referring it to committee was expected around 5:30 p.m.\n\nhttps://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/2120264807190274231\n\n[NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-led-house-rejects-hegseth-impeachment-effort-rcna608534) reported that Massie, the only Republican to vote against the referral, said Hegseth \"has violated the norms of war, and it's to the disadvantage and the dishonor of our country, and to the danger of our soldiers in future conflicts.\" \"Somebody's got to put their foot down and say, 'Are we going to follow the laws that are on the books? Are we going to follow the Constitution?'\" he said. \"And the best way to do that is to have an impeachment against Pete Hegseth.\"\n\nHegseth rejected the charges at a Pentagon news conference on Tuesday morning, before the vote. \"It's a farce, and it's a stunt and everybody knows it,\" he said, according to NBC News. He argued that the military actions cited in the articles were lawful and called the effort a \"political spectacle.\" \"What one disgruntled and defeated congressmember is attempting is not oversight, and it's not accountability,\" he said, according to The Seattle Times. \"I stand behind every one of these operations. I was proud to execute them, and I would do it again tomorrow.\" He compared the bid to the two House impeachments of Trump in his first term and said, \"If standing with President Trump puts me in that company, I'll take that company every day of the week.\" He also said, according to NBC News, \"We destroyed terror regimes' capabilities. We sank the boats carrying poison into our communities. We put a narco dictator in handcuffs. These are not high crimes. This is the job, and it's the job well done.\"\n\nIssa, who offered the referral motion, told reporters the secretary \"has committed no high crimes or misdemeanors,\" according to NBC News, and that the effort would \"die in the Senate\" because there are not 67 votes to convict. \"The Senate often has to protect against the rashness of the House,\" he said. He also suggested Massie was pushing impeachment because he was upset about his primary defeat, a motive Massie has not accepted; Massie has framed the articles as a legal and constitutional case, not a personal grudge.\n\nOther Republicans drew a narrower line. Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, an Air Force veteran who is leaving Congress, told reporters he did not \"align with the impeachment itself\" but would have felt \"a little differently\" if the resolution had addressed the firing of generals and the spending of appropriated money, NBC News reported. Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, who voted to impeach Trump over Jan. 6, asked The Seattle Times before the vote, \"Agree with the policies or not, are they impeachable? That's the question.\" Rep. Michael Baumgartner of Washington called the effort a \"political stunt\" and said the House had \"pressing national security work to do including passing a defense budget.\"\n\nPentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell called the referral a \"TOTAL VICTORY\" and said the effort had been \"a political exercise devoid of merit, evidence, or seriousness,\" [USA Today reported](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/11/10/pete-hegseth-avoids-impeachment-vote/92714806007/). After the vote, Trump wrote on Truth Social that \"the Democrats' attempt to impeach Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has miserably FAILED\" and that \"every single Republican, except Thomas Massie, a major LOSER, voted in favor of Pete,\" according to USA Today. That description skips Kiley's independent yea and the seven Republicans who did not vote.\n\n## Jeffries, the next Congress, and a fight that is not over\n\nJeffries voted nay. He had already said he was a \"hard yes\" on impeaching Hegseth and that \"Pete Hegseth has got to go,\" in remarks to [ABC News](https://abcnews.com/Politics/im-hard-hakeem-jeffries-announces-support-hegseth-impeachment/story?id=137952235) on Nov. 8. NBC News reported that he has also said Democrats will \"run Pete Hegseth out of town\" when they take over Congress next year. After Tuesday's vote, asked about the 11 Democratic absences, Jeffries said, \"I haven't had a conversation with anyone on the floor team about what may or may not have happened in terms of the Hegseth resolution, but this is not the end of it. It's just the beginning,\" according to [Common Dreams](https://www.commondreams.org/news/hegseth-impeachment-fails), which attributed the remark to a question from Politico's Riley Rogerson. This story did not independently obtain the Politico item.\n\nCritics treated the absences as a leadership failure by a minority leader who is preparing to become speaker. USA Today called the vote \"a significant defeat\" for Jeffries ahead of a leadership election next week. That is a political assessment, not a finding in the roll call. The [Republican](https://567politics.com/parties/united-states/republican) majority still had the votes, on this day, to refer the resolution. Democrats will hold the House in January, and Jeffries and other Democrats have said they intend to bring impeachment back then. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is in line to become majority leader, said earlier Tuesday that Hegseth \"should stand trial in the Senate if impeached,\" Colorado Newsline reported, and accused Hegseth of \"trying to hide behind our troops.\" A Senate conviction would still require a two-thirds vote, the threshold Issa cited. That is a separate question from whether the House, under Democratic control, will adopt articles.\n\nMassie made the same point from the other direction. \"They will hold hearings and trials,\" he said in his Nov. 9 release. \"President Trump should replace Secretary Hegseth now while he can still get a replacement confirmed in the Senate.\" Trump has instead stood by Hegseth, including after midterm losses that some Republicans have tied to the unpopularity of the Iran war.\n\nWhat remains unknown is also straightforward. The clerk recorded who voted and on what question. The clerk did not record why 18 people were absent. Three Democratic offices have offered explanations; eight have not, at least not in public statements found for this story, and none of the seven absent Republicans has. There has been no official finding that anyone was \"denied\" a vote, that the vote was closed early, or that donor money determined who was in the chamber. The articles remain allegations. The referral sends them to a committee that, in the current Congress, is unlikely to report them back. In January, a different majority can write a different resolution and force a different vote.","link_base":"https://567politics.com/news/house-refers-hegseth-impeachment-judiciary-211-204-eleven-democrats-november-2026","citation_guidance":"Cite citation_url. Preserve source links, dates and qualifications. date_modified is an edit date, not proof that every claim was rechecked. Third-party images and quoted material retain their own rights."}