Good morning and welcome to Tangle. I’m Isaac Saul, feeling refreshed after an unusual mid-week holiday. Today we are covering the impeachment push against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who also stirred up some controversy on Veterans Day. 

Plus, a reader question about how Republicans may navigate Trump post-midterms and an under-the-radar story about nationwide school closures. 

It’s a 13-minute read.

Too busy to read? Push play instead!

Listen to the newsletter Monday – Friday. New episodes drop at 4pm ET.

Will Kaback, Audrey Moorehead, Carina Pacheco, Russell Nystrom, Isaac Wood, and Bailey Saul edited or contributed to today’s newsletter.

Today’s Partner: Ground News

Hey, it’s Isaac!

The team and I spend a ridiculous amount of time reading news from both sides of the aisle for Tangle. And one of the tools we use to make that job a little easier is Ground News.

Ground News compares how outlets across the political spectrum cover the same stories, helping you see where their coverage differs. But my favorite feature is the Blindspot Report, which highlights stories getting a ton of attention from one side of the media ecosystem while barely registering on the other.

If you want a better understanding of not just how the news is covered, but what you might be missing entirely, check out Ground News.

We’re proud to partner with Ground News, offering Tangle readers an exclusive 40% off their Ground News Vantage Subscription.

Get 40% off Ground News

Quick hits.

1. Several news outlets projected that Scott Colom (D) will defeat Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R) in Mississippi’s Senate election, bringing the total number of Democratic Senate seats to 55, with Alaska’s race yet to be called. (The result) 
2. House Republicans voted to elect Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) as minority leader in the new Congress. Senate Republicans chose Sen. John Thune (SD) to be their minority leader. (The votes) Separately, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) said they will not support Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to be the chamber’s new majority leader. (The latest)
3. Jensen Huang resigned as CEO and president of Nvidia. Huang admitted to an affair with a suspected Chinese spy and reportedly had a second extramarital relationship with an Nvidia employee. (The report)
4. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent moved from his Washington, D.C. residence to a military base in response to heightened Iranian threats against him. (The relocation)
5. Russian and Ukrainian officials met in the United Arab Emirates for two days of U.S.-brokered peace discussions. The sides agreed to a prisoner swap but did not announce any breakthroughs on the war. (The meeting)

Today’s topic.

The failed impeachment of Pete Hegseth. On Tuesday, the House voted 211–204 to refer eight articles of impeachment filed against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the House Judiciary Committee. The Republican-controlled committee is not expected to take further action, effectively ending the impeachment attempt. 11 Democrats were absent from the vote, which allowed Republicans to pass the referral measure and avoid a floor vote on impeachment. 

Back up: Impeachment is the process through which Congress can remove certain members of the executive and judicial branches from office. First, a simple majority in the House must vote to impeach. Representatives’ impeachment motions can be referred to committees for further investigation, review, and debate before returning to the House floor for a vote. If the House votes to impeach, the Senate can hold a trial and remove the official from office with a two-thirds majority vote. However, the committee can also choose not to take action. The most recent impeachment of a Cabinet member was President Joe Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024; the Senate dismissed those charges. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) filed the impeachment resolution. Articles I through III accused Hegseth of illegally launching and continuing the Iran War. Article IV alleged Hegseth ignored laws that are designed to minimize civilian casualties in his decisions on Iran. Article V argued that U.S. strikes against alleged drug boats constituted extrajudicial killings. Article VI accused Hegseth of using his office to suppress Sen. Mark Kelly’s (D-AZ) free speech. Article VII concerned the extradition of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, alleging that it was an illegal kidnapping. Article VIII accused Hegseth of starting an illegal war in Yemen.

Republican leadership originally worried that the impeachment would advance due to poor attendance among their party. However, the House GOP ultimately had fewer absences than Democrats after several members said they missed the vote due to a traffic incident around the Capitol building. 

Democratic leaders have not said whether they will attempt to impeach Hegseth again in 2027, after large House and Senate Democratic majorities will be sworn in. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) did not commit to any action. “We’ll have that conversation at the appropriate time,” he said. 

Many Republicans celebrated the result of the vote. “Spirit like rarely seen before, led to the EXONERATION of a Great American Patriot,” President Donald Trump said. “The Democrats continue to weaponize and abuse the United States of America. They must be stopped!”

Today, we’ll share perspectives from the left and right on the attempt to impeach Hegseth. Then, Executive Editor Isaac Saul’s take.

In The Intercept, Nick Turse argued “none of it is true.”

“Over half an hour, [Hegseth] declared every military operation he has overseen ‘lawful’ and claims of civilian harm ‘slander.’ He said the Iran war was a great victory and only 18 Americans have died in the conflict. He also claimed that the effort to impeach him was a stunt by just ‘one disgruntled congressman,’” Turse said. “Experts in the laws of war, a Pentagon official, and members of Congress from both parties say Hegseth’s boat strikes against ‘cartels,’ which have now killed upward of 240 people, are illegal extrajudicial killings.”

“Of the Iran war, Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former chief of international law at U.S. Central Command, said the opening strike ‘clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution,’” Turse wrote. “The American people, writ large, appear to agree with Ansari, Massie, the U.S. officials, and those in the military’s orbit. Just 32 percent of voters approve of the way Hegseth is handling his job, while 57 percent disapprove.”

In Slate, Jim Newell wrote about “how Pete Hegseth escaped.”

“Hegseth may have been the ripest political target for impeachment. But these articles weren’t written to maximize votes,” Newell said. “Most Republicans have issues with Hegseth… [but] don’t have a problem with what Hegseth has done in Venezuela, or Yemen, or to people in the Caribbean, or his creative interpretations of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Most of them support most of that. 

“And even though many don’t like that they lost their elections over high gas and other input prices sparked by the Iran war, they’re not outright opposed to confronting Iran,” Newell wrote. “Massie was asking them not merely to impeach Hegseth; he was asking them to reject the foreign policy of Trump’s first two years. They weren’t about to take that leap on either the policy or the politics. Even retiring members.”

In CNN, Stephen Collinson suggested “Trump is defending himself.”

“Deep into President Donald Trump’s news conference Monday, it became obvious why he’s so adamant in backing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth amid an impeachment storm,” Collinson said. “To jettison the former Fox News anchor now would be to admit that the Iran war — of which Hegseth is the administration’s most vehement proponent — was a mistake. A sacking would also undermine Trump’s attempt to recast what is at best an inconclusive military adventure and at worst a strategic disaster.” 

“If Trump rejected the man who rebranded the Pentagon the ‘Department of War,’ he’d be trashing his own brand,” Collinson wrote. “[Hegseth] seems safe from being ejected from office in the short term, since a two-thirds majority to convict seems unlikely in any Senate impeachment trial… [But] Hegseth could prove to be a liability when Trump needs to get defense spending requests through a Democratic Congress.”

In Townhall, Horace Cooper said “the impeachment circus comes for the Pentagon.”

“The Framers designed impeachment as an emergency safeguard against treason, bribery, and personal corruption — not as a parliamentary vote of no confidence when lawmakers dislike a president’s foreign policy,” Cooper wrote. “Massie’s resolution… If Congress believes the executive branch has overstepped its constitutional bounds in Iran or the Caribbean, the Constitution already gives lawmakers a decisive, unambiguous tool: the power of the purse.” 

“What Congress should not do is scapegoat a subordinate Cabinet secretary for following lawful directives issued by the elected Commander in Chief,” Cooper said. “Oversight is a vital congressional duty. But turning constitutional impeachment into a tool for lame-duck political theater weakens the presidency, undermines civilian control of the military, and invites endless partisan retaliation the next time power changes hands.”

In The Free Press, Eli Lake asked “did the impeachment threat just save Pete Hegseth?”

“Normally, the prospect of a cabinet secretary’s impeachment would be a reason for a president to cut him loose. In the case of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the threat of impeachment is one very big reason why he will stay in his post at the Pentagon, at least for now,” Lake wrote. “Defending Hegseth makes sense from a political standpoint… Seven of the eight articles in Massie’s impeachment bill directly implicate the president.”

“The irony is that, without the impeachment, Trump and his allies may have found it more convenient to cut Hegseth loose at this point in his term,” Lake said. “The lasting effect of the impeachment gambit may be pushing Trump to defend a member of his cabinet associated with an unpopular war that a segment of his base deeply opposes. Massie has forced the president’s hand and, at least for now, Hegseth will likely survive because of it.”

In The American Conservative, Jude Russo made a “political argument against Pete Hegseth.”

“Let us remember that Hegseth has not been an optimally competent and PR-neutral official, even before he started howling for blood on live television. His Defense Department has been a staffing clown-show, largely self-inflicted; his high-profile reprisals against staffers, some of whom were his longtime friends and allies, in the end turned on entirely baseless accusations of leaking,” Russo wrote. “Hegseth has been a liability machine from the start.”

“Why not pin this stupendously unpopular, difficult to resolve war on him? This is obviously an argument of expediency, not justice (mostly),” Russo said. “There is an endangered official very publicly attached to a very unpopular policy. The president is no stranger to writing off distressed assets. Why not Hegseth? By his own admission, the war is why the GOP lost midterms… It should be underlined that this need not change policy; even a boring secretary of defense will do what he is told to do from on high.”

My take. Isaac Saul Executive Editor

The past week has brought Democrats back to Earth after their historic midterm performance. The absent Democrats’ excuses don’t add up, and their colleagues are right to be furious.  I’m unsure if Hegseth deserved impeachment, but I think the process would have forced him to be more transparent and accountable.

Reminder: This is where we share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, leave a comment or reply to this email.

Welp, the honeymoon is over.

Nine days ago, Democrats were basking in the glow of sweeping electoral fortunes that only come along once or twice in a lifetime. Now it’s back to reality.

Consider what’s happened since last Tuesday’s “blue tsunami.” President Trump tapped Stephen Miller as his chief of staff, the clearest signal yet that he’ll double down on maximizing executive power and lean into culture wars with the left. A few days later, House Republicans tapped Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) to replace House Speaker Mike Johnson (LA) and be their minority leader in the next Congress. Jordan has a near-zero record of passing legislation or whipping votes for leadership (his talent has been organizing votes against leadership), and he’s best known for combative hearings, dressing down Democrats in public, and punchy TV hits. Like the Miller appointment, this is a true “wartime” pick akin to replacing Sherlock Holmes with Jack Reacher. 

Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate approved a “sense of conference” resolution that pledges to maximize their remaining days in power, attempt to pass another reconciliation bill in the lame duck session, and confirm every judicial nominee and executive nominee they can before January 3 (Republican voters might be wondering where that energy was over the last few months). The White House counsel then sent an overt threat to incoming Democrats that pursuing investigations targeting the Trump administration could be considered criminal, an assertion equaled in its boldness only by its ridiculousness. Trump also scored a major 8–1 win at the Supreme Court, which cleared his administration to continue border wall construction in West Texas, a reminder for Texas Democrats that their wins last week can’t make all their problems disappear.

And how are Democrats wielding their incoming power? Well, on Tuesday Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) argued that if Sen. Chuck Schumer runs unopposed for majority leader, Democrats should withhold quorum and deny the caucus enough members to hold its leadership vote until he presents a clear plan for the path forward with members’ input. That’s probably music to the ears of many Democratic voters who want fresh leadership, but it’s also a reminder that plenty of intraparty battles are around the corner despite the sizable majorities Democrats will enjoy next year.

Which brings us to the Pete Hegseth impeachment vote.

This was Democrats’ first post-midterm opportunity to hold the administration’s feet to the fire, and they really couldn’t have picked a better foil. The Democratic base despises Hegseth. Not to mention, he has drawn harsh criticism from former Defense secretaries and members of the military across party lines. He’s the face of a deeply unpopular war. He is openly loathed by several sitting Republican senators. He’s defended extrajudicial boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific that have plausibly killed innocent people. And he was facing articles of impeachment that were brought by a Republican member of Congress. 

Politically, this should have been a layup: I have argued since he was nominated that Hegseth was one of Trump’s worst cabinet picks, an underqualified leader who has a track record of controversy and poor management. I believe his tenure has affirmed that view. Regardless of whether you think impeachment is justified, demanding greater transparency and accountability about the status of the Iran war, the boat strikes, and other conflicts abroad all feel in-bounds to me. I was hoping to see him face some scrutiny.

Of course, given Hegseth’s record, more Republicans than just Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) should have been willing to advance these articles. But all Democrats had to do was show up for the vote, advance the articles of impeachment, and set up weeks of public hearings and media attention on one of the Trump administration’s least popular and most vulnerable Cabinet members — and then, maybe, the Senate would vote to remove him, a historic rebuke.

Yet they couldn’t manage the most basic function of their job.

11 Democrats (and seven Republicans) missed the vote, allowing a successful motion to refer the articles to the House Judiciary Committee and effectively killing the effort until the new Congress convenes. The absentees included some notable figures like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), once considered the most shrewd operator in the House, whose staff said she was in California receiving a lifetime achievement award (congratulations, I guess?). Also absent was Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), who became a household name a couple of weeks ago after endorsing Republican Mike Rogers in the Michigan Senate race (she hasn’t explained the absence, but reportedly spent the day before hiding out in the Republican cloakroom). 

Reps. Jonathan Jackson (D-IL), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA), and Brittany Pettersen (D-CO) each claimed that they missed the vote because of a D.C. traffic jam, which would have been a pretty mediocre excuse on its own. 

Yet it turns out that at least Rep. Jackson was lying. 

TMZ reporter Charlie Cotton saw Jackson on the Capitol steps recording a social media video about Hegseth’s impeachment while the vote was happening, a series of events that sums up this moment in history better than anything I could write here. When Don Lemon confronted Jackson with the timeline, the representative conceded that he had made a mistake, messed up his times, and would take accountability for his actions. Inspiring stuff.

Meanwhile, the Democrats who moved heaven and earth to be there were rightfully infuriated. Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) underwent back surgery on Monday and checked himself out of the hospital on Tuesday morning to make the vote. A seething Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) told MeidasTouch Network on Tuesday night that Democrats “should have gotten their raggedy selves up these steps to vote.” By Wednesday morning, according to The New York Times, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) was lambasting party members in a closed-door meeting for squandering the opportunity.

One way to read the last 10 years of U.S. politics is that Donald Trump was elected in 2016 to burn down the status quo. By 2020, voters realized they didn’t much like the alternative and turned to elder statesman Joe Biden to guide the U.S. out of the pandemic. His stewardship produced some very unpopular economic outcomes, which allowed Trump to pull off a remarkable political comeback in 2024. Now, two years into his second term, it appears Americans are remembering what it’s like living under his leadership and not much liking that, either. So once again, voters are wielding their power — and we just got a crystal-clear reminder of how a president can suffer a devastating rebuke of his leadership even while the opposition party remains historically unpopular. 

Democrats were just handed a generational opportunity to rebuild their coalition. That doesn’t start in January — it started this week. And if it’s true that you never get a second chance to make a first impression, the party is already playing from behind with the American public.

Take the survey: Do you think Hegseth will eventually be impeached? Let us know.

Disagree? That’s okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we’ll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

What is the likely effect of the midterm elections on Republican senators and representatives? Will they be more likely to stand up to Trump or distance themselves from him and his policies?

— Brad from Oklahoma City, OK

Associate Editor Carina Pacheco: As today’s main story illustrates, everyone in Congress is weighing their answer to this question in real time. But if the GOP’s response after the midterm sweep is any indicator, Republicans will not respond uniformly. 

Last week, Editor Audrey Moorehead highlighted a plethora of responses to the losses from Republican leaders like Vice President JD Vance, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Those figures (and others) have offered a range of reactions on what went wrong, from rethinking foreign policy, to refocusing on culture war issues, to reevaluating economic priorities. 

Those may still be just ideas, but the midterm results have already prompted some action: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) decided not to run for House minority leader, and House Republicans chose firebrand Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) for the role in the next Congress. Vance, a likely 2028 presidential candidate, appears to be distancing himself from the Iran war, while Rubio was reportedly weighing stepping down as secretary of State to launch his own presidential bid (though he and the administration have since denied this). Republicans facing potentially difficult re-election or with ambition for higher office have the strongest incentive to break with Trump, and they appear to be testing their next moves in real time. 

To me, both parties have grown used to having Donald Trump as a foil, and both parties are entering the next two years completely blind. Democrats are buoyed by a large but tenuous coalition, excited to take back the reins in the waning years of the Trump era. But as Isaac noted in his take, divisions within that coalition are already emerging, and a public hungry for economic relief might make effective governing difficult. Republicans, on the other hand, are dejected by a resounding defeat, retreating into the official lame-duck period, licking their wounds and trying to regroup as best they can to ensure 2028 is not another bloodbath. 

However the parties end up aligning themselves, the Trump era will come to an end in 2028; Republicans and Democrats alike will need to find a new political rhythm that doesn’t rely on their relationship to the president.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

This week, the Associated Press reported that 1,156 schools closed during the last academic year, the highest total since the Covid-19 pandemic. The closures come as student enrollment numbers fall, suggesting schools could continue to shut down at an accelerated rate in the years ahead. Researchers say that the decreasing U.S. birth rate is primarily driving the enrollment decline, but recent immigration crackdowns, increased adoption of private school vouchers, and homeschooling are also contributing. Two research groups have estimated that public schools could lose $11.5 billion in annual state revenue by 2030–2031 if enrollment trends continue. The Associated Press has the story.

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered Trump’s 2020 election pardons. 
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was this year’s Pano Award-winning photos.
• Nothing to do with politics: Why the world (probably) isn’t ending tomorrow.
• Our last survey: As of 10:00 AM ET, 1,932 readers responded to our survey on the U.S. ending aid to Israel, with 34% saying they think the aid has been a net negative for the U.S. and President Trump is right to end it. “Aid makes us culpable for the actions of those we support,” one respondent said. “The end of aid was coming anyway… It could be a net positive for Israel to source from other locations or build their own arms industry,” said another. Reminder: We’re debuting a new survey tool this week. After you submit your response, you can see the live results.

Have a nice day.

When Patrick Mohr’s precious — er, wedding ring — slipped off as he was playing with his kids in rushing water on vacation in Italy, he thought he had seen it for the last time. But his wife wasn’t ready to give up. She approached the only three other people nearby and asked for help. Seeking to cheer up a dejected Mohr, they promised they’d find the ring and return it, describing it as an epic Lord of the Rings-style quest. After days of searching, the men found the ring and resolved to deliver it to Ireland themselves. They completed the quest in character, approaching Mohr’s house dressed as the hobbits Frodo, Merry, and Sam while playing Lord of the Rings music. “Sometimes you have to let go of control, sometimes you have to put things out into the universe and ask for help,” Mohr said. “And sometimes, you get an answer.” CBC has the story.