On September 2, 2025, a U.S. military operation in the Caribbean ignited a political firestorm that has only intensified in the weeks since. The operation, initially presented by the administration as a strike against an alleged drug boat, has come under fierce bipartisan scrutiny after reports surfaced that a second strike was ordered, killing survivors from the initial attack. The controversy now centers on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose alleged directive to "kill everybody" on the targeted boats has prompted calls for his resignation and accusations of possible war crimes.
According to The Hill, Hegseth admitted to watching the first strike live but said he "did not stick around" to witness the subsequent action that left two survivors dead. "As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do, so I didn’t stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs. So I moved on to my next meeting," Hegseth told reporters during a Cabinet meeting. The administration maintains that the admiral who ordered the second strike acted legally and that Hegseth had authorized the operation's actions.
The incident has sparked outrage across the political spectrum. Senator Jacky Rosen, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been among the most vocal critics. On December 4, 2025, Rosen called for Hegseth’s immediate resignation, stating in a press release, "If the reports are true, Pete Hegseth likely committed a war crime when he gave an illegal order that led to the killing of incapacitated survivors of the U.S. strike in the Caribbean. He should resign immediately." Rosen emphasized not only the legal but also the moral implications of the alleged directive, adding, "It’s deeply shameful that the Secretary of Defense would violate the laws of armed conflict and put our brave servicemembers in this position."
Rosen’s concerns are not hers alone. Lawmakers from both parties have joined in demanding a thorough investigation into the operation and the legal justifications behind it. In November, Rosen and her Senate Armed Services Committee colleagues formally requested that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary Hegseth declassify and publicly release the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion on the Trump Administration’s lethal airstrikes in both the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean. The hope, according to Rosen, is to ensure "full transparency with Congress" and to clarify the legal framework underpinning these controversial military actions.
At the heart of the debate is whether the actions taken by U.S. forces—and by extension, the orders given by Hegseth—violated international law. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual is unambiguous on this issue. As cited by The New York Times, the manual states: "The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal." The manual further forbids "no quarter" orders, which are directives to kill every combatant, including prisoners, the sick, and the wounded. It explicitly states: "It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), himself a former Air Force lawyer, was unequivocal in his assessment. "Killing shipwrecked survivors is a war crime," Lieu said on December 2, 2025, according to The Hill. He called for punishment for any U.S. military member involved in such conduct, including Hegseth. Lieu’s stance echoes the Law of War Manual’s assertion that all soldiers are legally obligated to refuse unlawful orders, regardless of the circumstances or the chain of command.
The pressure on Hegseth has been mounting steadily. Reports from HuffPost, Las Vegas Sun, and Nevada Independent have detailed the sequence of events and the growing chorus of lawmakers demanding accountability. According to these outlets, the Washington Post reported that Hegseth gave a verbal order for all crew members to be killed as part of the September 2 attack. Acting on this order, a special operations commander approved the secondary strike, even after observing two men clinging to the "smoldering wreck" of their boat minutes after the initial attack. The administration’s refusal to spare those who could not defend themselves—commonly referred to as giving "no quarter"—falls squarely within the definition of a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In the days following the revelations, President Donald Trump has attempted to deflect criticism. As reported by Roll Call, Trump told reporters, "I give you answers and solve your little problems. You go back and you can’t find anything, but you do, you do stories." Meanwhile, Hegseth has stood by his actions, insisting on the legality of the operation and the necessity of decisive action in the fight against drug trafficking. However, critics argue that such justifications do not—and cannot—override the fundamental laws of armed conflict.
The stakes extend far beyond the careers of the individuals involved. As The New York Times noted, the crisis "attacks the very character and identity of the American military." The laws of war are not mere guidelines; they represent the minimum standards of lawful conduct in conflict, standards to which all U.S. service members are bound. The distinction between the laws of war and the rules of engagement is crucial here. While rules of engagement may be more restrictive, the laws of war are absolute. Violating them not only exposes individuals to prosecution but also undermines the moral authority of the U.S. military on the global stage.
Senator Rosen and her colleagues have underscored the need for transparency and accountability. "The American people deserve to know exactly what happened," Rosen said. She has joined bipartisan calls for a full congressional investigation, seeking to ensure that the truth comes to light and that those responsible are held to account. The demand for the declassification of the OLC’s legal opinion is a key part of this push, as lawmakers seek to understand the administration’s rationale for the strikes and whether it was grounded in law or merely expedience.
As the investigation unfolds, the outcome will likely have lasting implications for military protocol, international law, and the broader question of executive accountability. For now, the controversy serves as a stark reminder of the grave responsibilities entrusted to those who wield the power of life and death—and the enduring importance of upholding the rule of law, even in the fog of conflict.
