In the wake of a deadly U.S. military operation in the Caribbean Sea, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is at the center of a firestorm that’s raising profound questions about the rule of law, military accountability, and the boundaries of executive power. The controversy, which has been simmering for months, erupted into public view after reports surfaced that Hegseth had ordered a follow-up strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat, resulting in the deaths of survivors from an initial attack. Lawmakers from both parties, military legal experts, and the public are now grappling with the implications of these actions, which some have labeled as potential war crimes.
The catalyst for this uproar was a September 2, 2025, operation in which U.S. Special Forces targeted boats suspected of smuggling narcotics to the United States. According to The Washington Post, Hegseth allegedly issued a chilling directive to “kill them all”—a command that led to a second strike aimed at eliminating two survivors who had managed to escape the first assault. The White House has denied that Hegseth gave such an order, instead shifting blame to Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the head of Special Operations Command. However, the controversy has only deepened, with conflicting accounts and a lack of public evidence fueling suspicion and outrage.
At least 22 boat sinkings have been carried out by U.S. forces in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since September, resulting in the deaths of 80 people, all suspected of drug smuggling. Yet, as Slate noted, no concrete evidence has been made public to substantiate the claims that these vessels were indeed carrying narcotics. The aggressive campaign, directed with apparent zeal by Hegseth but instigated by President Donald Trump, has drawn scrutiny not just for its lethality but for its legality.
The heart of the matter lies in the rules that govern armed conflict. The Defense Department’s own Law of War Manual explicitly prohibits declaring “no quarter” or conducting operations “on the basis that there shall be no survivors.” Orders to fire upon shipwrecked survivors are considered “clearly illegal.” Such prohibitions are not merely academic—they are rooted in international treaties and conventions designed to uphold basic human rights, even in war.
Hegseth’s attitude toward these rules has long been contentious. In his 2024 book, The War on Warriors, Hegseth recounted how, as a platoon commander in Iraq, he dismissed legal advice from a military judge advocate general (JAG) regarding the rules of engagement. The JAG had cautioned soldiers not to fire on an enemy unless the threat was imminent—a standard enshrined in both U.S. and international law. Hegseth, however, told his troops, “I will not allow that nonsense to filter into your brains. Men, if you see an enemy who you believe is a threat, you engage and destroy the threat. That’s a bullshit rule that’s going to get people killed. And I will have your back—just like our commander. We are coming home, the enemy will not.” According to The Guardian, this passage is emblematic of Hegseth’s broader disdain for legal constraints on warfare.
Since assuming the role of defense secretary, Hegseth has acted on these beliefs. One of his first moves was to dismiss several top military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. At public forums, he openly criticized retired generals for adhering too closely to military law, instead championing “maximum lethality” as the military’s primary mission. He even advocated for renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War, deriding the current title as “woke.”
The fallout from the September operation has been swift and fierce. On December 2, 2025, Republican Senator Rand Paul accused Hegseth of either lying or being incompetent regarding his denial of the follow-up strike. “Secretary Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this, and it did not happen. It was fake news. It didn’t happen. And then the next day, from the podium at the White House are saying it did happen,” Paul told reporters. “So, either he was lying to us … or he’s incompetent and didn’t know it had happened.” Paul’s skepticism was echoed by Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal and Mark Kelly, who criticized Hegseth’s attempts to shift blame to Admiral Bradley. Blumenthal went so far as to say, “Ultimately, Hegseth trying to shift the blame and make Admiral Bradley the fall guy ought to be reason to ask for his resignation or fire him. He should be gone.”
GOP Senator Thom Tillis also weighed in, emphasizing the need for accountability. “You don’t have to have served in the military to understand that that was a violation of ethical, moral and legal code. And so, if the facts play out the way they’re currently being reported, then somebody needs to get the hell out of Washington,” he said. “Whoever that is, is the person who made the decision and we can be connived that it was isolated to that one person. Anybody in the chain of command that was responsible for it, that had vision of it, needs to be held accountable.”
President Trump, for his part, has attempted to distance himself from the controversy. He stated that neither he nor Hegseth knew about the follow-up strike and affirmed his belief in Hegseth’s denial “100 percent.” Yet, Trump’s own rhetoric and policy direction have been cited by critics as creating the environment in which such actions could occur. Senator Kelly argued, “This is the kind of thing that happens when you have a president who says we’re going to go out and kill people. It’s not what presidents normally say. And when you have an unqualified secretary of defense, a guy who has basically zero qualifications for this job that runs around on a stage you know, talking about lethality and warrior ethos and killing people, and we’re going to hunt and kill people.”
The legality of the strikes is under further scrutiny due to the lack of evidence that the targeted boats were indeed carrying drugs. Senator Paul highlighted a letter from the Coast Guard indicating that 21% of boarded boats do not have drugs on them, undercutting the rationale for such lethal action. Meanwhile, some Republicans, like Senator Bernie Moreno, have defended the administration’s actions, framing them as necessary wartime measures against those “purposely and intentionally sending poison to kill American citizens.”
As investigations continue and calls for hearings grow louder, the broader implications of the incident loom large. The controversy has sparked debate over civilian-military relations, the role of legal oversight in combat operations, and the moral compass guiding America’s use of force abroad. The outcome could shape not only the careers of those involved but also the future of U.S. military policy and its adherence to the laws of war.
Whatever the final verdict, the events of September 2025 and their aftermath have forced the nation to confront uncomfortable questions about power, responsibility, and the meaning of justice in times of conflict.
