Pete Hegseth may have badly misread the moment. He seems to have believed that because he was following Donald Trumps orders that he therefore order executions without consequences. As the last few days makes clear – bombing alleged “drug boats” and killing their occupants without offering public evidence may be one thing. Ordering a second strike on survivors — to “kill them all” — appears to be something else entirely.
A week ago, I wrote that the only reason the administration could be angry at Mark Kelly — and others — for reminding troops to obey the law was someone in the chain of command was planning on issuing illegal orders. It turns out they may already have.
The correct action all along would have been simple: refuse illegal orders.
Hegseth may have assumed that because of his unfettered loyalty to Donald Trump, he could ignore the law and count on a pardon down the road. He failed to take into account several important items in his calculus.
Presidential Immunity Does Not Extend to Hegseth
The Supreme Court may have found that Donald Trump enjoys immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while serving as president, but that blanket of protection doesn’t extend to everyone around him. That would require a presidential pardon.
The hopes for a pardon may be dashed due to Trump’s own actions. In seeking to undo Joe Biden’s pardons Trump may, if successful, lay the groundwork for undoing his own pardons down the road.
Trump Readily Discards Allies
Trump is a transactional president. This means that as long he has use for someone in his orbit, they remain in his good graces. The second they lose their utility, he has no problem discarding them, often in the word possible ways. Many of his former allies have been left to hang out to dry, in their own legal jeopardies because of their willingness to follow his orders. Just ask:
- Michael Cohen (disbarred and served time in prison)
- Rudy Guiliani (disbarred and forced into bankruptcy) and
- John Eastman (disbarred)
Is Hegseth Ordering Executions Disguised As The Drug War?
Trump claims the campaign of airstrikes on alleged “drug boats” began on September 2, 2025. War crimes may have occurred on day one. That same day, Hegseth allegedly ordered a second strike on survivors who were clinging to wreckage.
Hegseth continues to brag about killing traffickers, but he has provided no evidence to support any of it. At least 20 strikes have taken place, killing at least 80 alleged traffickers. We are only now learning the details of the first strike. More information from later strikes is almost certain to surface.
Hegseth’s Shell Game
It will take some time for investigations to unravel the sequence of events. The Wall Street Journal originally reported that it was Pete Hegseth who commanded the military to “kill them all”, but the White House attempted to pass blame to Navy Vice Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, saying it was him who who gave the order.
Hegseth, seemed to take both sides, both covering his butt legally by denying that he gave the order for the second strike while also being somehow oblivious to the laws of war by defending the man that he alleged ordered the attack and claiming that Bradley “is an American hero, a true professional, and [he] has my 100% support”.
Trump initially denied knowledge of the strike, and claimed that he wouldn’t have authorized it, but later came to Hegseths defense by saying the “Pete is doing a great job“.
Now, Hegseth is blaming the “fog of war” for the second strike, while also claiming that the second long-range missile strike didn’t occur until an hour or two later. That statement seems to undercut the fog of war excuse.
In short, the explanations themselves are a complete clusterfuck, both denying knowledge of the strikes, supporting those who executed them and those who they reported to.
“Kill Them All”
We still lack full visibility, but the allegations are serious enough that both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee have opened investigations. Two Republican senators have already said that, if the allegations are confirmed, the follow-up strike was illegal and may qualify as a war crime.
Here’s what we know:
- On September 2, an airstrike sank an alleged drug vessel, killing all 11 people aboard.
- Later, two survivors were spotted alive in the water.
- Hegseth allegedly ordered a second strike with the instruction: “kill them all.”
The U.S. military excels at lethal force. But it is also bound by the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual — which makes the alleged follow-up strike clearly illegal. Those rules don’t exist solely to constrain our military — the exist because we expect armies that we battle against to obey them as well. We would be rightfully outraged if we learned that an enemy sank one of our ships and gunned down survivors floating in the sea.
The Law of War Manual
The manual is unambiguous. It would be extraordinary for an Admiral who has studied the text to issue such an order — unless directed by a Secretary of Defense who ignored the law or simply didn’t understand it.
Section 5.9 Persons Placed Hors De Combat makes clear that incapacitated combatants, including the shipwrecked, cannot be targeted. Section 5.9.4 goes further: shipwrecked individuals are helpless, and attacking them is “dishonorable and inhumane.”
War is not a video game. Drone operators don’t (and shouldn’t) get points for every kill. Once a person is wounded or out of the fight, they must be treated humanely. What Hegseth allegedly ordered amounts to “no quarter.”
Republican Senate Takes On Trump, Again
Congressional Republicans have spent nearly a decade shielding Trump or acting as his laptop. But twice in a single month they’ve broken rank — first by voting nearly unanimously (except for Clay Higgins) for the release of the Epstein Files, and now by supporting investigations into Hegseth’s actions. They almost seem to be inviting inquiries that could damage Trump’s presidency.
Typically, Republicans either plead ignorance or echo Trump’s “witch hunt” refrain. Not this time. One conservative commentator even said that if the orders occurred “as described … it was, at best, a war crime under federal law.”
Why the shift? Several possibilities:
- Trump is deeply unpopular, and Congress Republicans and their financial backers know it.
- Constitutional limits prevent a third term, making Trump a lame duck.
- Without distancing themselves from Trump and the MAGA movement, Republicans risk a Blue Wave in 2026, which could (hopefully) be detrimental to their donors.
Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said the alleged follow-up strike would be illegal if proven. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) went further, saying he didn’t believe Hegseth would be “foolish enough” to order the killing of survivors — because it clearly violates the law of war.
Time will tell whether Bacon has overestimated Hegseth’s propensity for foolishness. Too bad CliffNotes doesn’t publish an abbreviated version the Law of War Manual.
Secrecy, Denial, and Legal Sleight-of-Hand
Hegseth has dismissed reports as “fake news,” insisting the strikes were lawful and targeted “narco-terrorists.” But by sheer coincidence, he recently expelled journalists who refused Pentagon demands to limit their reporting to officially approved information. This move insulated him from taking tough questions at the podium that could have opened him to scrutiny much sooner.
Major outlets that surrendered their Pentagon credentials include the Associated Press, The New York Times, CBS News, Reuters — and even Fox News and Newsmax.
Congress should be exercising oversight, but members say they were never fully briefed. By burying information and restricting the press, Hegseth effectively gave himself free rein to authorize killings without checks, balances, or legislative review.
Why Hegseth May No Longer Be Safe
For months, Hegseth behaved as if he were untouchable: protected by executive authority, partisanship, and silence. That shield is falling apart, with lawmakers are openly calling for hearings, investigations, and potential criminal charges while media across the political spectrum is digging into the strikes.
If Hegseth and others were counting on a Trump pardon, that bet now looks shaky. By attacking the legitimacy of Biden’s pardons, Trump may be weakening the legitimacy of his own — and by extension, Hegseth’s ability to evade accountability.
Demand Investigation and Consequences
This isn’t about one official. It’s about whether the United States allows extrajudicial killings simply because the targets are labeled “traffickers” or “terrorists.” We need Congress to hold public televised hearings. We need the press to keep digging. And we justice system determine:
- Who ordered the second strikes?
- Who approved them?
- Who is accountable?
- What punishment should they face?
If Hegseth escapes consequences, he may feel empowered to authorize even more extreme actions.
Afterthought
More than twenty years ago, the Bush administration misled the world about Iraq’s ties to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The invasion that followed killed at least 186,000 Iraqi civilians, with some studies estimating excess deaths as high as 650,000. That number continues to rise, in part due to long-term effects of depleted uranium in U.S. munitions.
None of the architects of that war were held accountable.
We may cheer today if there is finally a crack in the Trump administration’s armor. But we must also save some of our outrage for any future administration that crosses those same lines, or worse.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.