The Trump administration’s lethal counter-drug campaign in the Caribbean — already responsible for at least 80 deaths in the last several months — entered a full-blown political and legal crisis after new reporting alleged that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered U.S. forces to leave no survivors during a September 2 strike on a Venezuelan vessel.

The allegations, first reported by The Washington Post, have triggered bipartisan congressional investigations, accusations of potential war crimes, and a rare moment of public distancing between President Donald Trump and one of his closest Cabinet allies.

Here’s a full breakdown of the controversy and what comes next.

What the Washington Post Report Says

According to the Post’s investigation — citing multiple military officials with direct knowledge:

1. The Strike

On Sept. 2, a U.S. surveillance aircraft tracked a suspected drug-running boat off Trinidad.

Intelligence assessments reportedly concluded the vessel carried drugs and cartel members.

Hegseth gave a verbal order: “Kill everybody.”

A U.S. missile destroyed the vessel, killing nine of the eleven people on board.

2. The Survivors — and the Second Strike

When the smoke cleared, two men were seen clinging to debris.

According to two officials:

The Special Operations commander overseeing the mission then ordered a second strike, explicitly to comply with Hegseth’s directive that there be no survivors.

The two men were killed moments later — “blown apart in the water.”

If true, that second strike is the crux of the potential war crime.

Hegseth: “Fake News,” But No Denial of Intent

Hegseth responded forcefully, but notably did not deny giving an order to kill all on board.

His statements included:

“Fake news delivering fabricated, inflammatory reporting.”

“These are lethal, kinetic strikes intended to kill narco-terrorists.”

“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”

He insisted the strikes are:

Lawful under U.S. and international law

Reviewed by Pentagon and civilian lawyers

Necessary to end the “Biden-era coddling of terrorists”

But again — he didn’t specifically refute the alleged command.

Why a Second Strike Could Be a War Crime

Even if the U.S. were in a legally recognized armed conflict with cartels — a claim experts heavily dispute — the law of armed conflict requires:

Distinction between combatants and non-combatants

Proportionality

No targeting of persons hors de combat (out of the fight) — including those incapacitated or surrendering

Two unarmed, injured survivors in the water cannot be legally targeted, even in wartime.

This is why lawmakers in both parties reacted immediately.

Congress Launches Bipartisan Investigations

Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees issued rare joint bipartisan statements, calling the allegations:

“Extremely serious”

“Worthy of rigorous oversight”

“Potentially unlawful action”

Key lawmakers weighed in:

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)

“There needs to be accountability… we will put these folks under oath.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

“If their theory of armed conflict is wrong, this is murder.
If their theory is right, this is a war crime.”

Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) — a Republican

“If this occurred, it would be a very serious, illegal act.”

This represents one of the most forceful bipartisan rebukes of the Trump administration’s national security conduct to date.

Trump Distances Himself: “I Wouldn’t Have Wanted a Second Strike”

In an unusual move, President Trump appeared to put space between himself and Hegseth:

“I don’t know anything about it. Pete said it didn’t happen.”

He added:

“I wouldn’t have wanted a second strike.”

Trump said he would “look into it”, though he simultaneously defended Hegseth as “doing an amazing job.”

This is significant — Trump almost never publicly contradicts or criticizes loyalist Cabinet members.

The Big Legal Question: Is the U.S. Actually at War With Cartels?

The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed:

The U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Cartels are “narco-terrorist organizations.”

But:

Congress has not authorized war.

No statute classifies cartels as entities with which the U.S. is legally at war.

The administration has not provided evidence of imminent threats that justify wartime strikes.

International law experts argue:

The U.S. is conducting extrajudicial killings, not military operations.

The “armed conflict” justification may not survive legal scrutiny.

This means:
👉 The first strike could be illegal
👉 The second strike could be a war crime
👉 Both could constitute unlawful killings

What Happens Next?

1. Congressional Hearings (Likely January 2026)

Witnesses expected:

Hegseth

SOUTHCOM commanders

JAG officers

Strike analysts

2. Inspectors General Inquiries

Pentagon IG and DoD lawyers will examine:

Legal basis for the mission

Command chain

Recorded communications

3. Possible Criminal Referrals

If evidence shows unlawful killings, the Justice Department could pursue:

War crimes charges

Negligent homicide

Unlawful orders

4. International Scrutiny

Human rights organizations and potentially the ICC will examine:

Whether U.S. forces violated international humanitarian law

Patterns in Trump’s “narco-terror” campaign

Bottom Line

The Caribbean boat strike has become the most serious legal crisis of Trump’s second-term national security policies.

Key issues at stake:

Did Pete Hegseth order an unlawful killing?

Did commanders execute an illegal second strike?

Did the U.S. kill wounded survivors in violation of the law of armed conflict?

Is the U.S. even legally “at war” with drug cartels?

Who will be held accountable?

This scandal is now bigger than one mission — it raises existential questions about Trump’s entire militarized anti-cartel strategy.