Breaking down the US military war crime allegations
Image: The Hill
In comments yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the US military’s decision to launch a follow-up strike on a suspected drug-running boat in the Caribbean Sea, after two shipwrecked occupants survived the initial strike.
- Speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Hegseth also told reporters he had left the room when the order for a second strike was given, after watching the first strike live.
- Hegseth said he instead authorized Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley to execute the September 2 operation to destroy the drug trafficking boat, which the Trump admin says was carrying drug-runners from the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
How we got here: Hegseth’s comments follow a Washington Post report, published Friday, that first publicized the second strike targeting the two shipwrecked survivors.
The Pentagon’s initial response to WaPo’s article last week described the report as “completely false.” But on Monday, the White House confirmed there was a second strike on the suspected drug boat, though officials say Hegseth gave Admiral Bradley the authority to make the order.
Why it’s a big deal
If carried out as described, the second strike may rise to the level of a war crime for killing incapacitated enemy combatants according to many law-of-war experts. Lawmakers from both parties say they plan to investigate the circumstances behind the strike, with Democrats quick to describe it as a war crime, and some Republicans also raising legal concerns.
- Under US military law, as well as Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, it’s illegal to kill enemy combatants who are out of the fight.
- “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” reads a passage from the Pentagon’s law of war manual.
On the flip side: Hegseth and other top Trump admin officials say the second strike was a lawful action to ensure the boat was destroyed and to eliminate a continued threat to the US. Hegseth yesterday also noted that the fire and smoke following the initial strike on the suspected drug boat made it so “you can’t see anything,” like survivors in the open water.
Big picture: The news comes as Trump has ordered a significant military buildup near Venezuela, raising the prospect of more severe action against President Nicolás Maduro’s government to deter drug trafficking. Over the weekend, Trump said the airspace above Venezuela should be considered closed, while the US military has positioned 11 warships and 15,000 troops near the country in recent months.
📊 Flash poll: In your opinion, how will the US military campaign against alleged drug trafficking from Venezuela play out?
See a 360° view of what pundits are saying →
Sprinkles from the Left
- Some commentators argue that the US military’s overall strategy to kill dozens of suspected drug traffickers rests on a shaky legal foundation, and the latest revelation should prompt a recognition that these killings were rotten from the start.
- Others question how Trump is able to reconcile his summary executions of alleged drug runners while also pardoning the former president of Honduras, who was sentenced by a US court for taking bribes from drug cartels to help move tons of cocaine to America.
- “Pete Hegseth’s Caribbean lawlessness” –WaPo Editorial Board
- “Killing of suspected traffickers at sea was already abhorrent. Hegseth may have made it a war crime.” –Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board
- “A sickening moral slum of an administration” –George F. Will, WaPo
Sprinkles from the Right
- Some commentators argue that while breaking US laws or committing war crimes is bad, many American voters support an administration that would utilize our military and law enforcement to take drug cartels, terrorism, and illegal immigration seriously, and defend US borders with lethal force if needed.
- Others contend that while the Pentagon is certainly full of people who might leak a derogatory story because they’d like to see Hegseth fired, or to constrain Trump’s ability to conduct military action, the charge of deliberately killing the defenseless is serious enough to warrant a close look from Congress.
- “Why is Hegseth being attacked for defending Americans?” –Nicole Russell, USA Today
- “Shooting the Wounded on Drug Boats?” –WSJ Editorial Board
- “‘We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal’ Is Not a Defense” –Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
Share this!
Recent Discussion stories
Discussion
| December 1, 2025National Guard shooting in D.C. sparks immigration crackdown
On Wednesday, two National Guard members were shot and seriously wounded in an ambush-style attack just blocks from the White House in Washington, D.C.
Discussion
| November 26, 2025Trump delays healthcare plan amid GOP pushback
Earlier this week, reports surfaced that President Trump and his advisers were considering a new healthcare plan that would extend Covid-era enhanced tax credits for the Affordable Care Act, which are set to expire at the end of this year.
Discussion
| November 24, 2025Are we in an AI bubble?
Massive hype around AI has helped power US stock markets to new all-time highs, with the top AI companies responsible for ~80% of all gains in US stocks in 2025, per a recent estimate.
You've made it this far...
Let's make our relationship official, no 💍 or elaborate proposal required. Learn and stay entertained, for free.👇
All of our news is 100% free and you can unsubscribe anytime; the quiz takes ~10 seconds to complete