On Sunday, allies of former President Donald Trump pushed back against a Washington Post report alleging that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered additional military strikes against survivors of attacks on suspected drug trafficking boats originating from Venezuela. This controversy is significant as it raises questions about the legality of military actions amid the Trump administration's increasing military presence in the region, aimed at applying pressure on President Nicolás Maduro.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that Hegseth allegedly ordered a second strike in September to eliminate any survivors from a boat that had already been targeted off the coast of Venezuela. In response, Hegseth took to social media platform X to label the report as "fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory." The claims were further echoed by CNN, which reported on the alleged military directive on Saturday.
Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) appeared on CNN's State of the Union to challenge the authenticity of the report, deeming it "anonymous and unproven." Mullin expressed skepticism about the claims, stating, "I don't know if I believe that at all." He emphasized that both the Navy and Coast Guard have previously rescued and returned survivors from other military engagements, suggesting that Hegseth would not make such a reckless order as to "kill everybody" or "kill the survivors," which he argued would constitute a clear violation of the law of war.
Similarly, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a retired Air Force general, voiced his doubts regarding the validity of the report during an appearance on ABC's This Week. "I'm very suspicious that he would have done something like that because it would go against common sense," Bacon remarked. However, he also added a caveat, stating that if the allegations in the Washington Post were true, it would represent a serious violation of military law.
In light of the gravity of the allegations, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) issued a joint statement on Saturday. They pledged to conduct rigorous oversight of military operations in the Caribbean, highlighting the seriousness of reports regarding follow-on strikes against boats accused of ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region. The statement emphasized their commitment to gathering a comprehensive account of the operations in question.
It is noteworthy that a congressional briefing on these military strikes was abruptly canceled, and the admiral overseeing operations in the South American and Caribbean region stepped down in October. Furthermore, Attorney General Pam Bondi refrained from commenting on a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel that purportedly provides legal justification for the military actions when questioned on Fox News Sunday. Nonetheless, she did caution that "Venezuela drug dealers need to tread very, very carefully."
Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy captain, weighed in on the controversy, stating that a second strike on survivors could indeed constitute a war crime if the allegations hold true. "I've got serious concerns about anybody in that chain of command stepping over a line they should never step over," he remarked on CNN's State of the Union. Kelly emphasized that the United States holds itself to a "very high standard of professionalism," contrasting the nation with others like Russia or Iraq. He was one of six Democratic veterans who recently released a video urging service members to refuse illegal orders, a move that has led to an investigation by the military.
In his defense, Kelly asserted, "I'm not backing down. They don't scare me," indicating his commitment to uphold ethical standards within the military.
The Defense Department's Law of War Manual explicitly states that issuing orders to shoot at shipwrecked survivors is a clear violation of military law. On page 1117, the manual outlines that such commands are illegal and must be refused by service members. This legal framework underlines the serious implications of the allegations surrounding Secretary Hegseth's purported orders.
As this story continues to develop, it raises significant questions about military conduct, legal standards, and the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy in the Caribbean region.