In what has quickly developed into one of the most serious controversies of the Trump administration’s second term, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing mounting scrutiny following reports that he verbally instructed military personnel to “kill everyone” aboard a suspected drug-smuggling vessel targeted in a September strike in the southern Caribbean. The allegation, first reported by The Washington Post and later echoed by several national outlets, has prompted discussions among lawmakers about potential war-crimes investigations and even impeachment proceedings.
According to officials familiar with the operation, the incident occurred on September 2, 2025, when U.S. forces conducted a missile strike against a small vessel believed to be transporting narcotics near the waters off Trinidad and Tobago. The initial strike reportedly disabled the boat. However, drone footage later revealed two survivors clinging to debris in the water. Sources told the Post that a special operations commander overseeing the mission ordered a second strike after receiving what they described as a direct verbal instruction from Secretary Hegseth to kill all individuals associated with the vessel.
The Pentagon has publicly rejected the account. Chief spokesperson Sean Parnell called the narrative “entirely false” and declined to answer specific questions about whether Hegseth issued such an order. Administration officials, speaking on background, said the strike complied with existing rules of engagement targeting transnational criminal organizations. But legal experts and former military lawyers dispute that interpretation.
Several specialists in the laws of armed conflict noted that ordering the targeting of defenseless survivors—individuals who no longer pose any threat—would violate both U.S. military regulations and international humanitarian law. They pointed to long-standing prohibitions against “denial of quarter,” the practice of killing rather than attempting capture when an adversary is incapacitated or no longer resisting. “If these allegations are accurate, the action would be clearly unlawful,” said Marcus Ellery, a former judge advocate and scholar of military ethics. “It would raise serious questions about accountability at the highest levels of government.”
The report has also reignited a separate debate that has simmered for months: the Trump administration’s decision to employ U.S. military force against suspected narcotics traffickers in the Caribbean without explicit authorization from Congress. Since August, the United States has conducted at least seven such strikes. While the administration argues that drug cartels constitute national-security threats that justify immediate kinetic action, several lawmakers—both Democratic and Republican—have expressed concern about the legal basis for the operations.
The latest allegations have intensified those concerns. On Capitol Hill, a number of Democratic committee leaders have called for hearings to examine the administration’s policies and the circumstances surrounding the September strike. Some members have gone further, suggesting that the reported directive from Hegseth may warrant impeachment proceedings. “Congress cannot ignore credible allegations that a Cabinet secretary may have ordered the unlawful killing of defenseless individuals,” said Representative Alicia Torres (D-CA), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. A spokesperson for the committee’s Republican chair declined to comment.
Inside the Pentagon, officials appear to be grappling with the fallout. According to two individuals with knowledge of internal discussions, senior officers have privately expressed concern about the episode’s potential implications for U.S. forces deployed overseas. One official said the reports have created “a wave of unease” among commanders tasked with overseeing operations against criminal networks. Another described a growing fear that political directives may be encroaching on long-standing rules of engagement.
The White House has remained publicly silent, though several administration aides, who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations, said President Trump was frustrated by how quickly the story gained traction. The aides said the president’s team had not anticipated the level of attention the reports would receive, particularly during the holiday news cycle.
For now, significant uncertainty remains. No formal investigation has been announced, though pressure is building from human-rights organizations and military-law experts who argue the U.S. government must provide a full accounting. Whether Congress will pursue impeachment or other disciplinary actions is also unclear. But with new details continuing to emerge and lawmakers signaling that they intend to seek testimony from key defense officials, the controversy surrounding the strike appears unlikely to fade soon.
If confirmed, the alleged order could become one of the most consequential legal and political challenges of Trump’s second term—one that tests not only the boundaries of executive power but also the United States’ commitment to the rule of law in wartime operations.
