Assistance from Claude AI.
A fact-check of the controversy surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the September 2 Caribbean boat strike
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faces bipartisan congressional scrutiny over allegations that he ordered U.S. forces to “kill everybody” aboard a suspected drug boat, resulting in the execution of two survivors clinging to wreckage. The controversy raises profound questions about military law, executive authority, and what orders—if any—require criminal investigation.
What Actually Happened: The Undisputed Facts
On September 2, 2025, U.S. military forces struck a suspected drug-trafficking boat off the coast of Trinidad in what would become the first of more than 20 attacks killing 83+ people across the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Here’s what multiple independent sources confirm happened that day:
The Basic Sequence:
- A missile struck a boat carrying 11 people
- The strike killed 9 people but disabled the vessel
- Surveillance detected two survivors clinging to the wreckage
- U.S. forces conducted a second strike
- Both survivors were killed; the boat sank
- Total death toll: 11 people
Key Context:
- SEAL Team 6 carried out the operation
- Admiral Frank M. Bradley commanded from Fort Bragg
- Defense Secretary Hegseth had authorized the mission
- The administration identified all 11 as members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated as a terrorist organization
- This was the first in what’s now 21 strikes that have killed 83+ people
Why This Strike Stands Out
What makes September 2 unusual is what happened in subsequent operations. When survivors were detected after later strikes:
- October 16: Two survivors were rescued by helicopter, briefly detained, then sent home to Ecuador and Colombia
- October 27: When surveillance spotted a survivor, the U.S. alerted Mexican Navy for a rescue attempt
The September 2 killing of survivors was anomalous—and that’s why it’s under investigation.
The Core Dispute: What Orders Did Hegseth Give?
The central question isn’t whether survivors were killed—they were. The question is whether Hegseth specifically ordered their execution.
The Washington Post’s Account
The Post reported on November 28, citing “four sources with direct knowledge,” that:
– Hegseth gave a verbal directive to “kill everybody”
– When survivors were detected, Bradley ordered the second strike “to comply with Hegseth’s instructions”
– “The order was to kill everybody,” one source said
The Administration’s Response
The response has been… complicated:
Hegseth called the report “fabricated” but didn’t explicitly deny giving such an order. Instead, he emphasized strikes are “intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes’” designed to “kill the narco-terrorists.”
Trump said Hegseth denied it: “Pete said he did not order the death of those two men. And I believe him, 100 percent.” But Trump also said he “wouldn’t have wanted that. Not a second strike.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed a second strike occurred but attributed the decision to Bradley, saying he “worked well within his authority and the law.”
A Critical Clarification
The New York Times later reported, based on five U.S. officials, that:
- Hegseth’s written execute order authorized lethal force and destruction of the vessel
- But the order “did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things”
- Hegseth did not issue additional orders after survivors were detected
This suggests there may be a distinction between:
- A written order authorizing general lethal force
- A possible verbal “kill everybody” directive
- Bradley’s operational decisions during the strike
Why This Matters Legally
Even people who disagree about the boat strikes generally agree on one thing: deliberately killing defenseless survivors is illegal.
The Pentagon’s Own Rules Are Clear
The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual explicitly states: “Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
The manual also prohibits “hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter.”
What Legal Experts Say
The Former JAGs Working Group—composed of retired military lawyers who served as Judge Advocates General—issued a unanimous statement:
“The Former JAGs Working Group unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both.”
Their reasoning: Under either scenario—whether this is an armed conflict or not—killing survivors is criminal:
- If an armed conflict: An order to “kill everybody” violates the prohibition against “no quarter”
- If not an armed conflict: Killing defenseless civilians would be murder under U.S. law
Even conservative legal commentator Andy McCarthy, writing in the National Review, concluded: “If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law.”
The Broader Legal Controversy
The survivor question exists within an even larger legal dispute: Is the entire boat strike campaign lawful?
The Administration’s Theory
Based on reports about a classified Justice Department memo, the administration argues:
- The U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels
- Boat crews are “unlawful combatants”
- The drugs themselves are legitimate military targets (because their sale finances cartel violence)
- Trump can authorize this under Article II authority without congressional approval
Why Most Experts Reject This
A broad consensus of legal scholars says this doesn’t hold up:
Not an Armed Conflict: Drug trafficking doesn’t meet the legal definition of armed conflict, which requires organized armed forces engaged in sustained violence distinct from crime or terrorism.
Targets Are Civilians: Suspected drug smugglers are criminals, not combatants. Military forces cannot deliberately target civilians who don’t pose an imminent violent threat.
Novel and Unsupported: The theory that cocaine itself is a military target is described by experts as unprecedented and unsupported by any existing legal framework.
Geoffrey Corn, the former U.S. Army’s senior adviser on the law of war, said the administration is “shredding” rather than “stretching” the legal envelope.
What We Don’t Know: Critical Gaps
Despite extensive reporting, major questions remain unanswered:
Documentary Evidence:
- Congress has requested Hegseth’s execute order—the administration hasn’t provided it
- Video and audio of the operation exist but haven’t been released
- The full Justice Department legal memo remains classified
Intelligence:
- No public evidence proves boats were carrying drugs
- No verification that crews were actually cartel members
- No demonstration that any posed a threat to the U.S.
- The Pentagon privately told Congress nearly all strikes targeted cocaine (not fentanyl), most bound for Europe, not the U.S.
Internal Military Concerns:
- Multiple military lawyers reportedly raised concerns about legality
- Senior JAG officers were fired in February 2025
- Admiral Alvin Holsey (SOUTHCOM commander) left after one year amid reported concerns about the strikes’ legality
- What objections were raised and why were they overridden?
Congressional Investigation: What Should Happen
Both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have opened bipartisan investigations. To get answers, they need to:
Obtain Key Documents:
- The execute order Hegseth issued
- All communications between Hegseth and Bradley during the operation
- The full Justice Department legal memo
- Intelligence used to identify targets
- Legal advice from JAG officers
Take Sworn Testimony From:
- Defense Secretary Hegseth (what orders did he give and when?)
- Admiral Bradley (what orders did he receive and execute?)
- JAG officers who raised concerns
- Intelligence officials who provided targeting information
Answer Critical Questions:
- Did Hegseth give a “kill everybody” order?
- When did he learn survivors were detected?
- Why weren’t survivors rescued, as in later operations?
- What legal advice was provided and ignored?
The Stakes Beyond One Incident
This isn’t just about what happened on September 2. It’s about:
Constitutional War Powers: Can a president unilaterally declare “armed conflict” with criminal organizations and conduct military operations without congressional authorization?
Executive Authority: If smuggling drugs constitutes an “armed attack” justifying military response, what are the limits on presidential authority to use lethal force?
Military Legal Safeguards: Can civilian officials dismantle military legal oversight when it proves inconvenient?
Accountability: If senior officials can pressure service members to execute potentially unlawful orders, how does accountability for war crimes work?
What Can We Conclude?
Firmly Established:
- Two survivors were killed in a second strike
- This differed from how later operations handled survivors
- The legal basis for the entire campaign is disputed by most experts
- Congressional oversight has been obstructed
- Military lawyers raised concerns that were overridden
Reasonable Certainty:
- Hegseth authorized lethal force (though precise wording disputed)
- Bradley ordered the second strike that killed survivors
- The administration gave different explanations to Congress vs. the public
- The legal theory is unprecedented and widely rejected
Key Uncertainties:
- Did Hegseth give a specific verbal “kill everybody” order?
- Did he know about survivors before the second strike?
- What was the actual target and intent of the second strike?
- What intelligence justified these operations?
The Bottom Line
Regardless of political views on drug policy or Trump’s approach to cartels, some principles should be non-negotiable:
- Military forces must obey the laws of war
- Orders to kill defenseless people are unlawful
- Congressional oversight of military operations must be respected
- Legal justifications for using lethal force should withstand scrutiny
The factual disputes about Hegseth’s orders matter enormously for assessing individual criminal liability. But even if Hegseth didn’t give a specific “kill everybody” order, profound questions remain about an operation that—unlike subsequent strikes—resulted in survivors being killed rather than rescued.
Congressional investigations should determine not only what happened on September 2, but whether the broader legal framework for these operations can withstand constitutional and international law scrutiny. The American people deserve transparency about when, why, and under what legal authority their military is authorized to kill suspected criminals without trial or due process.
This analysis draws on reporting from The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, The Intercept, and other sources, as well as statements from legal experts, congressional committees, and administration officials. A comprehensive analysis with full citations is available here.