Rep. Ilhan Omar’s December 1, 2025 post accusing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of enabling a “war crime” didn’t emerge from nowhere. It came at the peak of a rapidly unfolding political, legal, and moral crisis surrounding the Trump administration’s lethal campaign against suspected cartel-linked vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. At the center is an explosive Washington Post report alleging that Hegseth effectively issued a “kill everybody” directive before a September 2 strike that ended with the deliberate killing of unarmed survivors in the water.

Omar—already embroiled in clashes with Trump over Somali immigration and political legitimacy—is now directly accusing the Pentagon of violating U.S. military law, the Geneva Conventions, and basic human rights. While she did not use the phrase “war criminal” verbatim, her statement that the operation “resulted in a war crime” is widely interpreted as targeting Hegseth himself.

This deep dive unpacks what happened, why the outrage is bipartisan, and what comes next.

THE INCIDENT: WHAT LED TO THE “WAR CRIME” ALLEGATION

The First Strike — Lethal but Contested

On September 2, 2025, U.S. forces hit a Venezuelan speedboat allegedly smuggling fentanyl precursor chemicals. According to the Trump administration:

The boat was part of a network linked to 500+ overdose deaths that year.

It had fired on a U.S. Coast Guard cutter.

The U.S. acted under Trump’s expanded “armed conflict” authority against narco-terrorism.

The initial missile strike killed most of the 12 on board.

The Second Strike — The Controversial Part

According to The Washington Post, CNN, and military sources:

Drone feeds showed two unarmed survivors clinging to debris.

A Special Operations commander said he needed to “comply with the Secretary’s order: no survivors.”

A second missile was fired, killing both men in the water.

This is the moment lawmakers call a likely war crime. Even in wartime:

Killing incapacitated, surrendering, or defenseless enemies violates international law.

A “no quarter” order (kill all, take no prisoners) is explicitly illegal under the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Alleged Directive

Multiple sources quoted in the Post say Hegseth verbally issued the operational guidance:

“The order was to kill everybody.”

Hegseth denies giving that command but has not denied saying the mission was intended to leave “no threats behind.”

OMAR’S STATEMENT — WHAT SHE SAID AND WHAT IT MEANS

On December 1, Omar posted:

“This dangerous overreach has led to a war crime.”

She didn’t use the words “Pete Hegseth is a war criminal,”
but she placed the responsibility for the war crime at the level of the order-giver, which—per the report—was Hegseth.

This aligns with her long-standing anti-interventionist stance:

2020: Opposed U.S. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.

2021: Pushed to curb drone strikes.

2023: Called for ending counterterrorism exemptions in Somalia.

2025: Introduced a War Powers Resolution limiting maritime strikes.

In other words, this is consistent, not opportunistic.

WHAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE SAYING

Democrats (across ideology lines):

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA):

“Hegseth is a war criminal. Fire him.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD):

“If the U.S. wasn’t legally at war, it’s murder. If it was, it’s a war crime.”

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) (ret. Navy Captain):

“We will have public hearings. Under oath.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA):

“Congress never authorized this.”

Republicans: cautious but not defending the strike

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), House Armed Services Chair:

“If true, this is illegal and demands answers.”

Sen. Mike Turner (R-OH):

“If there was a second strike on survivors, that would be very serious.”

Notably, not one GOP leader has defended the legality of killing survivors.

HEGSETH’S DEFENSE: “FAKE NEWS, AND THEY WERE NARCO-TERRORISTS”

Hegseth responded on X:

“Fake news… These are lethal, kinetic strikes.
Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a terrorist organization.”

The administration’s new line is:

These are war operations against narco-terrorists.

Therefore, the U.S. can treat cartel members as lawful enemy combatants.

Survivors remaining alive could contact cartel networks and pose future threats.

The problem?
Neither Congress nor international law recognizes drug cartels as a foreign army.

TRUMP’S ROLE — SUPPORT WITH A LITTLE DISTANCING

Trump said aboard Air Force One:

“Pete said he didn’t say that.
I believe him 100 percent.”

“I wouldn’t have ordered a second strike… but I don’t know that it happened.”

He’s backing Hegseth rhetorically while leaving room to blame subordinates if necessary.

WHY OMAR’S CRITICISM IS SO POLITICALLY EXPLOSIVE

1. She is already Trump’s favorite target

He repeatedly calls for her deportation (impossible—she’s a naturalized citizen).

He accuses her of immigration fraud (never substantiated).

He claims she “hates America.”

Her “war crime” accusation gives Trump a new avenue to attack.

2. She is on House Foreign Affairs

Her critique carries institutional weight.

3. She is Somali-American

Right-wing commentators are framing her criticism as “loyalty to Somalia,” not loyalty to American troops.

4. She helped publish a guide for service members on refusing illegal orders

Six Democrats—including Omar—published a memo on November 30 reminding military personnel:

“You are obligated to refuse unlawful orders.”

Conservatives blasted this as “insurrection by pamphlet.”

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Investigations incoming:

House Armed Services Committee
Senate Armed Services Committee
Possible Inspector General probe
Potential DOJ review if evidence mounts

Legal exposure for Hegseth:

“No quarter” orders violate U.S. military law.

He could theoretically face criminal liability under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or federal murder statutes if prosecutors consider the operation outside “war.”

Congressional fallout:

This will dominate December and early 2026 hearings.

BOTTOM LINE

Omar did not literally say “Pete Hegseth is a war criminal,” but her statement that the mission “led to a war crime” unmistakably points responsibility at the top.

The allegations against Hegseth are far more serious than normal political fight-talk—if confirmed, they cross into unlawful killing or “murder” under international law.

Bipartisan members of Congress are taking it seriously.

Trump is protecting Hegseth but also hedging.

Public opinion on X is sharply polarized, with Omar’s critics focusing on her identity rather than the legal issues.

This is now one of the biggest national-security scandals of Trump’s second term.