A classified U.S. counter-narcotics mission in the Caribbean has become one of the most severe legal and political crises of the Trump administration. At the heart of this is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, accused of issuing an unlawful “kill everybody” directive on September 2, 2025. A boat strike that left all 11 on board dead.
The second missile strike, which killed two survivors clinging to wreckage, is now the subject of bipartisan investigations in Congress. Former military lawyers say that if true, the order and its execution could qualify as war crimes under both U.S. and international law.
What follows is a clear and organized look at what is known, what is disputed, and why the legal stakes are enormous.
What’s known so far
Several major outlets-most specifically, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, and NBC News-find common cause on a number of baseline facts:
The Sept. 2 strike targeted a suspected drug-smuggling boat near Trinidad.
SEAL Team 6 carried out the mission under the command of Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley.
Nine people died in the first strike.
Surveillance spotted two survivors in the water.
A second strike followed to kill the survivors.
This was the first of a campaign of 21 maritime strikes which now has killed more than 83 people.
Later missions would handle survivors much differently: they would be rescued rather than killed.
This makes for the core reason why the attack on September 2 has come under heavy scrutiny.
What’s at issue
The core open question is simple:
Did Hegseth issue an order, verbally, to “kill everybody”?
The Washington Post, quoting officials with direct knowledge, says yes.
The administration says no – but hasn’t released the written execute order or any communications from the operation.
The New York Times, which cited the written directive by Hegseth, said lethal force – authorized, though it did not detail what to do if people survived the first missile. Officials said Hegseth did not issue new instructions once survivors spotted.
This leaves open whether a verbal order most damaging of the claims, given and interpreted as a no-survivors directive.
Why the second strike is so important
Both U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions prohibit killing survivors of ship sinkings.
As the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual states:
“Orders to fire on shipwrecked are clearly illegal.”
Former Judge Advocates General of all services, in a rare unanimous statement after reviewing the allegations, said that if the reporting is accurate, both the order and the act could amount to:
War crimes,
Murder,
or both.
Even legal experts sympathetic to broad executive power say deliberately killing survivors would be indefensible.
The Administration’s legal theory — and why experts reject it
A memo from the Justice Department is said to classify drug-smuggling crews as “unlawful combatants” and argue that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with cartel-linked groups.
Legal scholars across the spectrum say this is a framework without precedent.
Cartels are criminals, not combatants.
Drug smuggling is not an “armed attack.”
Declaring an armed conflict does not allow the killing of unarmed survivors.
Even in war, orders of “no quarter” are forbidden.
Critics say that in effect, the memo seeks to turn targets of law enforcement into wartime targets to justify lethal force.
Why Congress is investigating
Bipartisan investigations were initiated by both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Among other things, lawmakers are seeking:
Hegseth’s written execute order
real-time communications with Adm. Bradley
surveillance footage of both strikes
the classified OLC memo
all internal legal objections
Identification of all 83+ killed
So far, the Pentagon has not fully cooperated with document requests.
Members of Congress have made clear that the refusal to release basic information is now part of the controversy.
ALSO READ: Rising bioweapon threats: Jaishankar issues warning
Why this case sets a dangerous precedent
The controversy extends well beyond a single mission. Experts caution that adoption of the administration’s argument would permit any president to:
declare armed conflict against criminal organizations.
authorize lethal force anywhere in the world.
sidestep Congress,
treat suspected criminals as military targets
And using the military for roles traditionally set aside for law enforcement. In other words, the boundary separating policing from war could well disappear.
It remains to be seen whether Congress will determine if a verbal “kill everybody” order was given, whether senior officers tried to stop the operation, and whether the administration exaggerated the threat posed by the boat crews.
Investigators’ conclusions regarding whether unlawful orders were either given or carried out by senior officials could mean the difference between Hegseth’s job security and broader questions of military accountability, war powers, and the limits of presidential authority.
FOR MORE: https://civiclens.in/category/international-news/
About the Author
1 thought on “Hegseth’s ‘kill everybody’ order: The strike that now faces possible war-crime scrutiny”