War crime, murder, or lawful strike: The controversy over Pete Hegseth’s 'kill everybody' order
Legal experts say targeting defenseless or shipwrecked individuals could constitute a war crime or murder, depending on whether the operation is treated as part of an armed conflict.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is under scrutiny following a lethal strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean on 2 September, which killed 11 people, including two survivors of the initial attack.
Legal experts say targeting defenceless or shipwrecked individuals could constitute a war crime or murder, depending on whether the operation is treated as part of an armed conflict.
The controversy stems from reports that Hegseth allegedly issued a verbal order to military personnel to "kill everybody" aboard the vessel.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
According to The Washington Post, after two survivors emerged from the wreckage, Special Operations commander Admiral Frank M Bradley authorised a second strike, resulting in their deaths.
Under the laws of armed conflict, deliberately targeting individuals who are hors de combat - out of the fight or unable to defend themselves - is prohibited.
The Pentagon's law of war manual states that orders to fire on shipwrecked persons are "clearly illegal," and service members have a duty to disobey them.
Outside an armed conflict, experts say such actions would be murder under US criminal law and a violation of international human rights law.
Hegseth has denied issuing an unlawful order, calling the reports "fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory" and asserting that operations were "lawful under both US and international law," with the goal to "stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people."
President Donald Trump also defended Hegseth, saying he had "great confidence" that the defense secretary did not order personnel to leave no survivors, and that he "wouldn't have wanted that, not a second strike."
However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly stated that the order for "everyone be killed" "came from President Donald Trump," though she later emphasised that Bradley ordered the follow-up strike and acted "well within his authority and the law."
The Trump administration has classified suspected cartel operations as part of a non-international armed conflict, designating vessels and crews as "combatants" and their shipments of drugs as lawful military targets.
Legal scholars, however, widely dispute this interpretation. If no armed conflict exists, killing defenceless survivors would be considered extrajudicial murder.
The 2 September strike was the first in a broader campaign of lethal strikes targeting suspected drug-smuggling boats, which has killed more than 80 people in over a dozen attacks.
Congressional leaders, including Republican and Democratic members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, have called for thorough oversight.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer requested that Hegseth release "full, unedited tapes of the strikes" to clarify what occurred.
The case has also drawn attention to internal contradictions within the administration. Officials have sought to distinguish between Hegseth's authorisation of the operation and Bradley's on-scene execution of the follow-up strike.
Meanwhile, criticism has emerged over Hegseth's public behaviour, including posting an AI-generated image depicting Franklin the Turtle firing missiles at drug boats, which Democratic Senator Mark Kelly described as unprofessional for a Secretary of Defense.
Legal experts say the central question is whether Hegseth explicitly ordered the killing of survivors or whether Bradley acted independently under existing operational directives. Retired Major General Steven Lepper said anyone who issues or follows orders to kill survivors "can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both."
The dispute over responsibility and legality continues to challenge the Trump administration's counter-narcotics strategy while raising questions about accountability for actions that may violate US and international law.
The information and opinions presented in this article have been compiled from contributions by multiple independent agencies and sources, including Time, The New Yorker, Politico, PBS, ABC, Independent UK, and the New York Times.
