Reporting from the Washington Post has brought to light troubling allegations against U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who purportedly ordered military personnel to “kill everyone” during a strike on a suspected drug trafficking vessel in the Caribbean Sea on September 2, 2023. This revelation has reignited discussions surrounding Hegseth’s prior remarks about military engagement, particularly his criticisms of existing rules of engagement and military protocols.
During a speech to senior military leaders in Quantico, Virginia, Hegseth expressed disdain for what he labeled “politically correct rules of engagement.” He stated, “We fight to win. We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country.” This statement was made just weeks before the alleged “kill everyone” directive, which has drawn scrutiny from legal experts who characterize it as a potential war crime.
The U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Frank Bradley, who oversaw the Joint Operational Command during the strike, reportedly interpreted Hegseth’s order as a directive to eliminate two survivors from the initial assault. According to legal experts, such an action likely violates both U.S. federal law and international law regarding armed conflict. Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer with extensive experience advising Special Operations forces, noted that an order to show no quarter would constitute a war crime.
Calls for accountability have emerged from lawmakers across the political spectrum, particularly given that the Pentagon estimates the strikes have resulted in the deaths of at least 80 individuals. Huntley emphasized that, in the absence of a legitimate war and without an imminent threat to the United States, the killings could be classified as murder under U.S. law.
In response to the strikes, the Trump administration has maintained that the U.S. is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with designated terrorist organizations. This position has been supported by an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which contends that military personnel executing orders in accordance with the laws of war would not face prosecution.
Bradley defended the controversial second strike, arguing that the two survivors remained legitimate targets as they could potentially contact other traffickers for assistance. Since the events of September 2, the U.S. has conducted at least 22 additional strikes against suspected drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.
As this situation unfolds, the implications of Hegseth’s statements and the subsequent military actions raise significant ethical and legal questions regarding the conduct of U.S. armed forces in operations targeting criminal enterprises. With ongoing investigations expected, public and political scrutiny surrounding these actions is likely to intensify in the coming months.
