The U.S. military is embroiled in a significant legal and political controversy following allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a directive to “kill everybody” during a maritime strike in the Caribbean. The claim, revealed by investigative reporting from the Washington Post, has prompted urgent calls for accountability from lawmakers, legal experts, and international observers, who are questioning the legality of the operation under the laws of war.
The controversial incident occurred in early September 2023 as part of Operation Southern Spear, a U.S. military campaign targeting vessels suspected of narcotics trafficking. During a mission near Trinidad, a missile strike hit a suspected drug-trafficking boat. Reports indicate that two individuals survived the initial explosion, clinging to debris, when Hegseth allegedly ordered a second strike that killed them. This operation was executed by personnel from the Joint Special Operations Command, including members of SEAL Team 6.
Officials characterized the targets as “unlawful combatants” believed to be affiliated with transnational narco-terrorist groups. The Pentagon has defended the broader campaign, asserting that the U.S. is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” against criminal organizations that pose a cross-border threat. However, the U.S. government has not disclosed the identities of those killed or provided evidence of their direct involvement in drug trafficking, raising concerns about transparency and the legal frameworks governing such operations.
The alleged directive from Hegseth has drawn criticism from military law experts, human-rights advocates, and former prosecutors, who argue that such an order could violate the Geneva Conventions. They contend that targeting individuals who cannot defend themselves resembles an execution without trial, which is prohibited under international law. Critics have also highlighted that justifying the second strike as necessary to eliminate a navigational hazard stands in opposition to international maritime law.
The political fallout has been swift. Members of Congress from both parties are calling for investigations into the operation and the broader Southern Spear campaign. Concerns have been raised about the absence of congressional authorization for what increasingly appears to be an undeclared military conflict. Lawmakers have demanded that the administration provide intelligence verifying the supposed connections between the victims and criminal organizations.
Reports indicate that over 20 maritime strikes have occurred since September, resulting in at least 83 deaths. Legislators have warned that confirmation of Hegseth’s directive could lead to long-term legal repercussions for senior officials involved in the decision-making process.
International reactions have intensified as well. Several Latin American governments, particularly Venezuela, have condemned the strikes as unlawful extraterritorial killings. Human-rights organizations share these concerns, arguing that the operation threatens to undermine global norms regarding the use of military force against civilian suspects and criminal groups. Regional diplomats caution that the escalating tensions could jeopardize U.S. relations across the Caribbean and South America as nations demand greater accountability from Washington.
In light of the growing pressure, the U.S. defense establishment faces mounting requests to release operational footage, legal authorizations, and intelligence assessments that would clarify the decision-making process behind the strikes. The discourse surrounding Hegseth’s directive has evolved into a broader debate about the legality, transparency, and future conduct of U.S. military operations in the ongoing war on drugs.
