Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s reported order in early September to “kill everybody” aboard an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean has sent shock waves throughout Washington, prompting scrutiny from key leaders in Congress and a cautious defense from President Trump.
According to a report in The Washington Post on Friday, an initial strike left two survivors, and the commander in charge of the operation ordered a follow-up strike to comply with Hegseth’s orders to leave no survivors.
The report has renewed questions about the legal basis of the Trump administration’s campaign against alleged “narco-terrorists” in the Caribbean and Pacific, which has killed at least 80 alleged drug traffickers in recent months. The Trump administration says the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, but the administration has not publicly provided evidence showing an imminent threat to Americans.
Some members of Congress now say that, even if the U.S. were at war, launching an attack on the survivors of a strike who no longer pose a threat to the U.S. could constitute a war crime.
Here’s what to know about the report and its fallout:
Washington Post report sets off alarm
The Washington Post report details the sequence of events that took place on Sept. 2, the first time the U.S. fired at a Venezuelan boat allegedly carrying drugs and members of a cartel in international waters.
A U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, and intelligence officials became increasingly confident that the 11 people on board were transporting drugs, the Post reported.
Hegseth “gave a spoken directive,” the Post reported, citing two people with direct knowledge of the operation. One individual told the news outlet, “The order was to kill everybody.”
A missile was fired off the Trinidad coast and hit its target. For a few minutes, commanders watched a livestream of the boat burning. When smoke cleared, they saw two survivors “clinging to the smoldering wreck,” the Post reported.
At that point, the Special Operations commander in charge ordered a second strike “to comply with Hegseth’s instructions,” the Post reported, citing two people familiar with the matter. The two survivors were “blown apart in the water,” the Post added.
Hegseth responded to the report later on Friday, calling it “fake news” without directly refuting the “kill everybody” order. He insisted that the U.S. military’s strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats, which have taken place in both the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, are “lawful.”
“As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’ The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.
Congressional scrutiny ramps up
The top Republicans and Democrats on the Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate announced they would be conducting rigorous oversight to determine what happened during the Sept. 2 attack.
“This committee is committed to providing rigorous oversight of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) military operations in the Caribbean,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), the top Democrat on the panel, said in a joint statement.
“We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question,” they added.
Their Senate counterparts similarly issued a statement responding to the Post’s report, vowing oversight.
“The Committee is aware of recent news reports — and the Department of Defense’s initial response — regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a joint statement Saturday.
“The Committee has directed inquires to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to the circumstances,” they added.
Other members of Congress have raised doubts about the legality of the reported events.
“We’re going to have an investigation,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) said in a Sunday interview. “We’re going to have a public hearing. We’re going to put these folks under oath. And we’re going to find out what happened. And then, there needs to be accountability.”
Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), a former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, stressed that Congress “does not have information that that had occurred,” referring to the incident described in the Post’s report, but he added in a Sunday interview, “Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act.”
“I think it’s very possible there was a war crime committed,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in a Sunday interview about the second reported strike on Sept. 2.
He also called into question the legality of the initial strike.
“Of course, for it to be a war crime, you have to accept the Trump administration’s whole construct here, which is we’re in armed conflict, at war, with this particular — with the drug gangs,” Van Hollen said. “But it could be worse than that, right? If that theory is wrong, then it’s plain murder.”
“I’m saying that it’s either murder from the first strike, if their whole theory is wrong. … But even if you accept their theory, then it is a war crime,” he added.
Trump distances himself from strike order
President Trump on Sunday appeared to distance himself from the decision to launch a second strike, even as the president said he has “great confidence” in Hegseth and believes his rejection of the accusation against him.
“I don’t know anything about it. He said he did not say that, and I believe him, 100 percent,” Trump said about Hegseth, referring to the reported “kill everybody” order.
Trump added, however, that he would not have ordered a second strike, even if there were two survivors.
“No. 1, I don’t know that that happened,” Trump said, when asked whether a hypothetical second strike would be illegal. “And Pete said he did not want them — he didn’t even know what people were talking about. So, we’ll look at, we’ll look into it.”
“But no, I wouldn’t have wanted that, not a second strike,” he continued. “The first strike was very lethal, it was fine, and if there were two people around. But Pete said that didn’t happen. I have great confidence in him.”
Trump said, “I don’t know,” when asked if there was a second strike.
“I’m going to find out about it,” he added. “But Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.”