New revelations that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered Special Operations forces to kill every person aboard a suspected narcotrafficking vessel in the Caribbean have sparked the sharpest legal and political crisis of the Trump administration’s fast-expanding maritime strike program. The Washington Post reported that the directive for the Sept. 2 operation “was to kill everybody,” a framing that prompted former top military legal officials to accuse Hegseth of committing “war crimes, murder, or both.” The controversy places the administration’s use of lethal force outside recognized war zones under unprecedented scrutiny and has triggered bipartisan demands for oversight.
The Post’s reporting describes an operation that diverged dramatically from past U.S. practice. Intelligence analysts had concluded the boat’s 11 passengers were allegedly transporting drugs to the United States. In previous circumstances, that would have prompted an interception, confiscation of contraband, and arrests. Instead, as the administration launched its boat bombing campaign, Hegseth issued his directive. One intelligence analyst told the Post that the order “was to kill everybody.” After the initial missile strike, officials realized that two passengers had survived, leading a Special Operations commander to carry out a second strike to carry out the order.
The Former Judge Advocates General Working Group, composed of retired senior military legal officers, said in response to the reporting that Hegseth’s removal of military legal leadership had destabilized the safeguards meant to prevent unlawful orders. They stated that his “systematic dismantling of the military’s legal guardrails” created the conditions for the strike and that “Had those guardrails been in place, we are confident they would have prevented these crimes.” They explained that if the administration considers the campaign a “non-international armed conflict,” then the directive to “kill everybody,” including through a “double-tap” on survivors, is “clearly illegal under international law. In short, they are war crimes.” If the operation is not an armed conflict, the targeting of defenseless survivors would make those involved “subject to prosecution under U.S. law for murder.”
The Working Group emphasized that “international and domestic U.S. law prohibit the intentional targeting of defenseless persons.” They argued that the survivors of the Sept. 2 attack “were rendered unable to continue their mission when US military forces significantly damaged the vessel carrying them.” Under those circumstances, they said, “not only does international law prohibit targeting these survivors, but it also requires the attacking force to protect, rescue, and, if applicable, treat them as prisoners of war. Violations of these obligations are war crimes, murder, or both. There are no other options.”
Warnings about the legality of the boat bombing campaign preceded the strike. NBC News reported that Senior JAG Paul Meagher, a Marine colonel at U.S. Southern Command, warned in August that initiating the boat attacks would expose U.S. service members to liability for “extrajudicial killing.” His objections came shortly before Hegseth fired the Army and Air Force JAGs. Writer Ramez Naam commented that Hegseth “telegraphed his intent to issue illegal orders the day he fired the JAGs,” pointing to Hegseth’s statement that the legal advisers had been dismissed to eliminate “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”
Hegseth denounced the Post’s reporting as “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting,” and insisted, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law.” He did not deny issuing the order described in the article.
Congressional oversight committees in both chambers immediately announced investigations. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker and Ranking Member Jack Reed stated that they had “directed inquiries to the Department [of Defense]” and would “be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.” House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Adam Smith released a similar statement.
Several members of Congress, including Republicans, signaled that the alleged orders would constitute grave violations. Senator Tim Kaine said the directive, if true, is “a clear violation of the DOD’s own laws of war, as well as international laws about the way you treat people who are in that circumstance. And so this rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true.” Senator Mark Kelly said the order is “clearly not lawful.” Senator Ed Markey said, “Pete Hegseth is a war criminal and should be fired immediately.” Senator Chris Van Hollen stated that the new reporting showed the strikes were “extrajudicial killings” and declared, “Hegseth needs to be held accountable.”
Republicans also voiced concern. Representative Mike Turner said, “if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that would be an illegal act.” Representative Don Bacon said that “if it was as if the article said, that is a violation of the law of war,” while adding, “I don’t think he would be foolish enough to make this decision to say, kill everybody, kill the survivors, because that’s a clear violation of the law of war.”
The scale of the campaign has raised further alarms. The Former JAGs Working Group noted that the continued bombing of boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific has killed more than 80 people. The administration has not released evidence that those killed were drug traffickers. The Associated Press identified among the victims “an out-of-work bus driver” and “a fisherman who had agreed to help ferry narcotics,” prompting one policy expert to compare the campaign to “straight-up massacring 16-year-old drug dealers on U.S. street corners.”
The crisis intersects with Trump’s escalating confrontation with Venezuela. Trump has claimed to Congress that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels in the country. After Trump declared the surrounding airspace closed, Venezuela denounced the action as an “extravagant, illegal, and unjustified aggression” and a “colonialist threat.” Intelligence assessments have not identified Venezuela as a primary source of drugs entering the United States.
Meanwhile, Trump announced his plan to pardon former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of conspiring to traffic more than 400 tons of cocaine. Hernández once said he wanted to “stuff the drugs right up the noses of the gringos.” Trump also said in 2023 that he would have taken control of Venezuela’s oil reserves had he won the 2020 election.
Political tensions grew further when Trump called for punishment of six lawmakers who appeared in a video reminding service members of their duty to refuse unlawful orders. Trump posted that their conduct was “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” The White House later claimed Trump was not calling for executions, although he reposted a message advocating hanging.
Representative Seth Moulton rejected the military’s justification for the second strike. Joint Special Operations Command told the White House the follow-on attack was necessary to prevent a “navigation hazard,” but Moulton said the explanation was “patently absurd.” He added, “Mark my words: It may take some time, but Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder.”
The Former JAGs Working Group encouraged Congress to investigate and urged the public “to oppose any use of the U.S. military that involves the intentional targeting of anyone… rendered hors de combat (‘out of the fight’) as a result of their wounds or the destruction of the ship or aircraft carrying them.” They added, “We also advise our fellow citizens that orders like those described above are the kinds of ‘patently illegal orders’ all military members have a duty to disobey.”
With rising death tolls, allegations of unlawful directives, and bipartisan calls for answers, the September 2 strike has become a defining test of legal accountability and the constraints on presidential military authority.
COMMENTS