Another week, another political circus designed to distract a distracted public. Representative Thomas Massie files articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth, and Washington treats the stunt like an earthquake. The headlines scream about constitutional crises, executive overreach, and the eternal clash of institutional power.
It is all noise. It is political performance art wrapped in the flag, executed by people who know the rules of the game far better than they know how to fix an economy or manage a defense apparatus.
The lazy consensus in the media is simple: Massie’s move represents a bold check on executive power, a principled stand against a controversial nominee or cabinet figure, and a vital defense of congressional prerogative. Everyone nods along, writes their hot takes about the separation of powers, and pretends we are witnessing a high-stakes constitutional showdown.
They are completely wrong.
This isn't a defense of the Constitution. It is a symptom of a legislative branch that has completely forgotten how to legislate, choosing instead to weaponize procedural theater because actual governance is too difficult.
The Myth of the Procedural Check
Let us look at the mechanics of what is actually happening. When a lawmaker drops articles of impeachment over policy disagreements, administrative clashes, or personal animus, they are not executing a constitutional safeguard. They are lowering the bar for the most severe tool in the republic's toolkit until it becomes a glorified press release generator.
I have spent enough time inside the beltway machine to smell a distraction from a mile away. When lawmakers cannot pass a coherent budget, secure the border, or address structural inflation, they reach for the panic button. Impeachment used to be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors—actual corruption, subversion of the state, or gross abuse of public trust. Now? It has been reduced to an administrative disagreement with a megaphone.
Massie’s supporters will tell you this is about holding the executive branch accountable. That sounds noble until you look at the track record of modern legislative oversight. It is toothless, performative, and entirely reactive. If Congress spent half the energy auditing defense spending that it spends drafting theatrical impeachment resolutions, the Pentagon might actually pass an audit for the first time in history.
Instead, we get this. A flashy filing that goes nowhere, satisfies the base on Twitter, and achieves precisely zero structural reform.
Why the Status Quo Loves the Fight
Why do politicians do this? Because it works. It raises money, garners cable news hits, and shields them from talking about boring things like legislative text and committee markups.
Imagine a scenario where Congress actually had to do its job: debating appropriations bills line by line, forcing tough floor votes on foreign entanglements, and reclaiming the war powers it cowardly surrendered to the executive branch decades ago over the last forty years. That requires heavy lifting. It requires risk. Filing a resolution against a high-profile target requires zero risk and guarantees maximum attention.
The media plays along because conflict sells. Every time a new article of impeachment drops, the news cycle feeds on the adrenaline of impending doom. But nothing happens. The resolution sits in committee, the target ignores it, and the news cycle moves on to the next shiny object by Tuesday afternoon.
The Real Question We Should Be Asking
People keep asking: Does this set a dangerous precedent for future administrations?
That is the wrong question. The precedent was set years ago when impeachment stopped being a constitutional remedy and started becoming a campaign tactic.
The right question is: Why do we tolerate a legislative branch that prefers performance over power?
Congress willingly traded its constitutional authority for the comfort of irrelevance. By letting the executive branch—regardless of who occupies the Oval Office—make the hard choices, lawmakers freed themselves up to become full-time pundits. They get the salary, the pension, and the perks, without any of the accountability that comes with making tough calls.
When a member of Congress files an impeachment resolution for maximum media impact rather than constitutional necessity, they are not checking executive power. They are highlighting their own impotence.
Stop pretending this is courage. It is an admission of defeat, disguised as a crusade.
