Critics are reacting strongly to a report from the *Washington Post* alleging that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a strike on a suspected drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean, resulting in the deaths of all individuals on board. The report, published on November 24, 2025, claims that after two survivors were spotted in the wreckage, military commanders executed a second strike to eliminate them.
According to the *Washington Post*, a source familiar with the operation stated, “The order was to kill everybody,” revealing a chilling directive that has drawn widespread condemnation. Following the initial strike, the subsequent attack aimed at the survivors raised serious ethical and legal questions regarding the military’s engagement rules. The report indicates that the two survivors were “blown out of the water.”
Legal and Ethical Implications
Legal experts have expressed grave concerns over the reported actions. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, described the incident as a “textbook war crime/extrajudicial killing.” In his analysis, he asserted that the administration’s justification for the second strike, claiming it was necessary to clear debris, is categorically flawed.
Critics, including political commentators and legal scholars, have voiced their outrage on social media platforms. Notably, David French remarked that killing unarmed survivors of a sinking vessel is not only heinous but also illegal under international law. He compared the act to historical atrocities, stating, “You do not kill helpless survivors of a sinking boat.”
Former President Donald Trump defended the military strikes, asserting that they were aimed at drug traffickers. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that the U.S. military tracks vessels closely, claiming, “We know who’s on them, who they are, where they’re coming from, what they have on them.”
Calls for Accountability
In response to the escalating criticism, Hegseth dismissed the *Washington Post* report as “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory.” He maintained that the operation adhered to both U.S. and international law, though he did not contest the specific details outlined in the report.
The backlash has continued to grow, with many calling for a Congressional investigation. Eugene Vindman, a Congressman, urged for the immediate release of the unredacted video of the strike and recordings of the orders given. He stated, “You will be held accountable for illegal orders you give,” underscoring the gravity of the allegations.
Legal experts have pointed out that executing unarmed individuals who pose no threat violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice, emphasizing the potential for legal repercussions for those involved in the operation. Ed Whelan, a conservative commentator, noted that if the details are accurate, the second strike is indefensible.
The implications of this incident extend beyond the immediate ethical concerns. It raises critical questions about military conduct and accountability in operations against drug trafficking and other crimes. As the situation develops, the scrutiny on Hegseth and the broader military strategy in the region intensifies, with many advocating for transparency and adherence to international law.
As discussions continue, the potential consequences of the alleged orders and the legal ramifications for those involved remain a central focus of both public and political discourse.
