Democratic lawmakers and some media outlets are intensifying scrutiny of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s role in a U.S. strike on a suspected Venezuelan drug-smuggling boat, arguing that a follow-up missile attack that killed two survivors could amount to a war crime. The debate has been fueled by a Washington Post report alleging an order to “kill them all,” subsequent accounts disputing that claim, and weekend talk show interviews probing the operation’s legality and congressional oversight.
The controversy centers on a September 2, 2025, operation in the Caribbean in which U.S. forces struck a boat that intelligence had identified as part of a Venezuelan drug-running network.
According to an anonymously sourced Washington Post report published in late November, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly issued an order to “kill them all” after an initial strike on the vessel left two survivors. The report said a second strike was then carried out, killing the remaining men in the water. That account, and the allegation that an explicit “kill them all” order was given, has been vigorously disputed by the Pentagon and Hegseth’s defenders.
Subsequent reporting and official briefings have offered a more complex picture. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said Hegseth authorized the operation but did not instruct forces to “kill everybody,” insisting the strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict. Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the Navy officer who oversaw the mission, has told lawmakers that he received no order from Hegseth to give “no quarter” or to “kill them all, ” according to accounts of his closed-door testimony. (dailywire.com)
Even with those denials, the legality of the second strike remains at the center of an intensifying political and legal battle. A Washington Post exposé and follow-on coverage in outlets including the Guardian and the Associated Press have reported that two survivors from the first strike were killed after they were seen in distress near the damaged or capsized vessel, prompting accusations from legal experts and human rights advocates that attacking shipwrecked individuals could violate international law protections for people rendered hors de combat. (apnews.com)
The Daily Wire, summarizing the media and political reaction, notes that critics in Congress and on television have portrayed the two men as unarmed survivors clinging to wreckage and have described the follow-up strike as potentially constituting a war crime. At the same time, ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz has cited unnamed sources who said the first strike disabled but did not fully destroy the vessel and that U.S. operators were in real-time contact with the Judge Advocate General’s office. According to that account, the remaining men were treated as lawful enemy combatants because they were believed to be trying to right the boat, call for help, and recover illicit cargo. (dailywire.com)
On the December 7, 2025, edition of ABC’s “This Week,” Representative Adam Smith (D–Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, criticized the Trump administration for what he described as a lack of transparency and communication with Congress about the Venezuelan boat campaign and about any potential land operations in Venezuela. “They have not kept us informed on this, they did not inform us of these strikes,” Smith said in an interview clip highlighted by ABC and later summarized by The Daily Wire. Smith also called for public release of the full video of the September 2 strike, arguing that the administration was resisting transparency on the episode. (dailywire.com)
Smith additionally addressed an Inspector General’s report criticizing Hegseth’s use of the encrypted Signal messaging app to transmit information related to a strike on Houthi targets. Suggesting that Hegseth’s public response to the findings had been insufficiently reflective, Smith said on “This Week,” “It’s perfectly okay to look back at past actions and say, ‘Yeah, I didn’t do that right.’” (dailywire.com)
On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Representative Jim Himes (D–Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he did not question Admiral Bradley’s personal integrity but worried about the pressures senior officers might face when carrying out controversial orders. “Anyone who has ever worked with Admiral Bradley will tell you that he has a storied career and that he is a man of deep, deep integrity. And frankly, I have no reason to doubt that,” Himes said, before asking what happens when “an apparently good man like Admiral Bradley is placed in a context where he knows that if he countermands an order that he is perhaps uncomfortable with, it is very likely that he will be fired.” The remarks were carried on “Face the Nation” and quoted in The Daily Wire’s recap. (dailywire.com)
Himes also argued that the strikes were hitting relatively low-level operatives rather than senior cartel figures, and that U.S. officials still did not know all of the identities of those killed in the Venezuelan boat operations. “The U.S. strikes are hitting low-level operatives, not high-ranking cartel leaders,” he said, adding that some top figures remain in “comfortable villas” while subordinates bear the brunt of the campaign. (dailywire.com)
Republicans have largely defended the operation and Hegseth’s leadership. Senator Eric Schmitt (R–Mo.), appearing on “This Week,” ridiculed Democratic assertions about the survivors’ intentions. Democrats, he said, “have such X-ray vision and clairvoyance that they know the intentions of narco-terrorists on boats, yet were so blind to see that they had a President for four years that was operating as a vegetable… Forgive me if I’m a little skeptical.” His comments, captured in a widely shared clip, underscored the partisan tone surrounding the dispute. (dailywire.com)
Beyond the fight over one mission, the broader campaign has drawn mounting scrutiny. U.S. operations targeting suspected Venezuelan drug boats since September have involved at least 20 strikes and dozens of deaths, part of what the administration describes as an aggressive counter-narcotics effort against “narco-terrorists.” Critics counter that the legal rationale for treating such missions as acts of war is shaky and that the rules governing the use of force at sea have not been adequately explained to Congress or the public. (dailywire.com)
The episode has become a flashpoint in a larger debate over how the United States wages counter-narcotics operations, how far commanders can go in targeting suspected traffickers, and how much information the executive branch owes to lawmakers when lethal force is used outside traditional battlefields.
