Recent reporting has thrust U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) chief Pete Hegseth into a serious and growing controversy: the possible ordering of a military strike that killed survivors of a surrendered Venezuelan boat—an act that legal experts and lawmakers now say may qualify as a war crime.
What the Reporting Says
According to a report published on November 28, 2025, Hegseth allegedly gave a verbal directive to “kill everybody” aboard a suspected drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean Sea during a Sept. 2 operation. The initial strike reportedly killed nine of the 11 people on board; two survivors—clinging to wreckage in the water—were then targeted in a second strike, allegedly to comply with Hegseth’s instruction.
The DoD operation was carried out by elite forces under the oversight of Frank M. Bradley, part of the command structure of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
The Administration’s Position
In response, Hegseth has strongly denied the allegations, calling the reporting “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory.” The White House likewise defends the operation as lawful under U.S. and international law, stressing that the targeted individuals were allegedly linked to a “designated terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump said he believes Hegseth’s denial, though he added that he “wouldn’t have wanted” a second strike, were it true.
Legal and Ethical Implications
If the allegations are accurate, many legal scholars argue the action could constitute a war crime or unlawful extrajudicial killing. Because there is no formally declared war between the U.S. and the boat’s occupants—who were allegedly traffickers rather than combatants in an established conflict—ordering the killing of surrendering or incapacitated individuals potentially violates international humanitarian law.
Further, members of Congress from both parties have called for investigations.
Wider Context: U.S. Military Campaign in Latin America
This strike was just the first in a broader campaign launched in September 2025—characterized by repeated air- and naval-based attacks on vessels suspected of trafficking drugs from Latin America toward the U.S. The campaign reportedly has resulted in more than 80 deaths across 20+ similar strikes, many of which remain poorly documented.
The administration frames the campaign as necessary to defend the U.S. from narcotics flows, designating involved cartels as “narco-terrorists.” Critics argue, however, that the operation bypasses standard law-enforcement procedures, lacks transparency, and risks unlawful violence.
Why This Matters
- International law & precedent. If confirmed, a high-ranking U.S. official ordering the killing of surrendered or incapacitated persons would set a dangerous precedent—potentially eroding long-established norms around lawful conduct in conflict, even outside declared wars.
- Congressional oversight and civilian governance. The allegations have triggered bipartisan calls for oversight, highlighting the tension between executive action in security matters and the need for transparency and accountability.
- Implications for U.S.–Latin America relations. The strikes—especially when civilian casualties are suspected—intensify tensions with Latin American governments and fuel criticism of U.S. use of military force in the name of drug control.
- Legal liability and moral cost. Beyond reputational damage, there may be legal consequences for military personnel who carried out the orders—and for the policymakers who authorized them.
—Greg Collier
Further Reading
- Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all—The Washington Post
- ‘This Is Murder’: Could Hegseth Face Prosecution For Alleged Order to ‘Kill Everyone’ on Boat in Caribbean?—TIME Magazine
- White House says admiral approved second strike on boat from Venezuela, defends attack as lawful—Reuters
- Lawmakers warn Hegseth may have committed war crimes following second-strike report—Politico
