White House Claims Trump ‘Has the Authority to Kill’ Survivors of Boat Strikes
One legal expert called the press secretary’s remarks “painful” to watch and warned of “how the reported patently illegal orders will affect US service members.”
This image was posted on social media by President Donald Trump and shows a boat that was allegedly transporting cocaine off the coast of Venezuela when it was destroyed by US forces on September 2, 2025.
(Photo: President Donald Trump/Truth Social)
Jessica Corbett
Dec 01, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
While continuing to deny that the Pentagon chief ordered those carrying out the first known US military strike on an alleged drug-running boat to “kill everybody” on board, the top White House spokesperson on Monday reiterated the administration’s position that President Donald Trump has the authority to take out anyone he deems a “narco-terrorist.”
Rights advocates, legal scholars, American lawmakers, and leaders from other countries have condemned the boat bombings in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean, which began on September 2, as murders, and rejected the Trump administration’s argument to Congress that the strikes are justified because the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.
A week after the first bombing, the Intercept reported that people on board survived but were killed in a follow-up attack. The Washington Post provided more details on Friday, including that Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley ordered a second strike on two survivors to fulfill US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged directive to kill everyone.
CNN also spoke with an unnamed source who confirmed Hegseth’s supposed edict—which the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, denied on Monday.
During Monday’s press briefing, NBC News White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez noted Trump’s “confidence” in Hegseth’s claim that he did not give an explicit order to kill everyone on the first vessel, and asked Leavitt, “Does the administration deny that that second strike happened, or did it happen and the administration denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?”
“The latter is true,” Leavitt said. She then read a statement that she often referred back to throughout the briefing:
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question on September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Adm. Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.
“And I would just add one more point,” Leavitt continued, “to remind the American public why these lethal strikes are taking place: Because this administration has designated these narco-terrorists as a foreign terrorist organizations, the president has a right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America, and if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate—which is what they are doing.”
Asked by Gutierrez to confirm Bradley ordered the second strike, Leavitt did so, saying that “he was well within his right to do so.”
Multiple other reporters also inquired about the recent reporting, including Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, who said: “You said that the follow-up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors?”
Leavitt responded: “The strike conducted on September 2 was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
Noting that exchange on social media, former Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said: “This is not how self-defense works. Everyone understands that self-defense requires an immediate physical threat and proportionality. Repelling a missile attack with a missile is self-defense. Blowing up boats hundreds of miles from US shores is not. This isn’t complicated.”
“This is not how self-defense works... Repelling a missile attack with a missile is self-defense. Blowing up boats hundreds of miles from US shores is not.
Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon special counsel who’s now a New York University law professor and Just Security coeditor-in-chief, also weighed in. “This has got to be one of [the] most painful responses to watch,” he said, also pointing out that “the ‘law’ Leavitt cites is utterly irrelevant (self-defense is non sequitur, it’s not armed conflict, and ‘no survivors’ is a crime).”
“Part of the pain in watching that response is knowing how the reported patently illegal orders will affect US service members,” Goodman added, referring to a new Just Security essay by Mark P. Nevitt, a retired judge advocate general who is now an associate law professor at Emory University.
Notably, Trump suggested last month that Democratic members of Congress who previously served in the US military and intelligence service and recently warned service members of their duty not to comply with illegal orders should be hanged. The Pentagon has since threatened to court-martial one of them: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain.
c by CBS News senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang about Hegseth’s reported spoken directive to kill everybody on the boat. Using Trump’s preferred term for the Defense Department’s leader, she said: “I saw that quoted in a Washington Post story. I would reject that the secretary of war ever said that. However, the president has made it quite clear that if narco-terrorists... are trafficking illegal drugs toward the United States, he has the authority to kill them, and that’s what this administration is doing.”
According to a CNN timeline, from September 2 to November 15, at least 22 US boat strikes killed 83 people and left two survivors who were initially taken onto a warship but ultimately returned to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador.
So far, Congress has failed to advance war powers resolutions intended to stop Trump’s boat-bombing spree. However, since the Post reporting, top Democrats on both the US House and Senate Armed Services Committees have promised vigorous oversight.
Following Leavitt’s remarks on Monday, the New Republic‘s Greg Sargent said that “it’s doubly relevant that Adm. Bradley is in talks about briefing the House Armed Services Committee,” and pointed to his new interview with Congressman Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the panel’s ranking member.
The congressman told Sargent he will pressure GOP members of the committee, including Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), to “use whatever leverage is available to us to try to get answers,” including subpoenaing top civilian and military officials.
Smith also discussed the reporting during a weekend appearance on MS NOW. Posting a clip of it on social media Monday, he declared that “Americans want to live in a constitutional republic, not an authoritarian dictatorship.”
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber’s floor Monday that “I don’t think we have ever seen someone so unserious, so childish, so obviously insecure serving as secretary of defense as Pete Hegseth—and that should alarm every single one of us.”
Schumer called on Hegseth to release the tapes “that would show exactly what happened during these military strikes,” and to “come before the Congress to testify under oath about the nature of his order, the evidence supporting the strikes, and an explanation for what the goals are in Venezuela.”
Republicans Probe Alleged Hegseth Order to “Kill Everybody” as War Crimes Mount
“Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder,” one lawmaker said.
By Sharon Zhang ,
Leavitt Says “All” Military Orders by Trump Must Be “Presumed to Be Legal”
The dubious claim comes despite officials within the administration saying that the boat strike operation is unlawful. By Sharon Zhang , Truthout November 25, 2025
The statements followed a report that a Special Operations commander ordered a second strike on a vessel off the coast of Trinidad after the live drone footage showed that two people had survived the initial blast. The order was reportedly given in order to follow through with Hegseth’s spoken command in the operation, which “was to kill everybody,” one source told The Washington Post.
The strike was reportedly carried out by SEAL Team 6, under the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which is responsible for some of the military’s most secretive operations.
The Intercept previously reported the “double tap” nature of the strike, but the latest revelations from the Post exposed JSOC’s supposed role in misrepresenting the strike to both the White House and members of Congress in closed door briefings. In those briefing materials, the military command said the second strike was “intended to sink the boat and remove a navigation hazard to other vessels.”
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Massachusetts), a House Armed Services Committee member who was privy to one of these briefings, said this explanation is “patently absurd,” and the strike “blatantly illegal.”
“Mark my words: It may take some time, but Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder,” he said.
Hegseth has denied wrongdoing. Trump said that he “wouldn’t have wanted” a second strike, but said that “Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.”
Legal experts and lawmakers have raised concerns that American soldiers may be prosecuted for carrying out orders in the boat strike operation that they deem illegal under both domestic and international law. Even if the initial strike were legal, former military lawyer Todd Huntley told the Post that the second strike “would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime” since the occupants weren’t able to fight back.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) has vowed to reintroduce his War Powers legislation seeking to bar President Donald Trump from carrying out further strikes in the operation or against Venezuela unless the administration obtains congressional approval. In an interview with CBS on Sunday, the senator said that he believes he will get more support for the resolution, which has already failed to pass the Senate twice.
“We think the escalating pace and some of the recent revelations — so, for example, the recent revelation about the ‘kill everyone’ order apparently dictated by Secretary Hegseth — we do believe that we will get more support for these motions when they are refiled,” he said.
The resolutions would be especially timely as the administration moves even further toward war. The U.S. has amassed a large amount of assets around Venezuela, and Trump declared on Saturday that the airspace above and around the country should be considered “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
As the U.S. aggression has mounted, however, so, too, have the legal concerns. In a joint statement following the report, a group of former military lawyers fired by the Trump administration said that the strike represents “war crimes” and could expose anyone involved in the strike to prosecution for murder.
“We call upon Congress to investigate and the American people to oppose any use of the U.S. military that involves the intentional targeting of anyone – enemy combatants, non-combatants, or civilians – rendered hors de combat (‘out of the fight’) as a result of their wounds or the destruction of the ship or aircraft carrying them,” the group said.
“We also advise our fellow citizens that orders like those described above are the kinds of ‘patently illegal orders’ all military members have a duty to disobey. Since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are ‘patently illegal,’ anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both,” they went on.
One legal expert called the press secretary’s remarks “painful” to watch and warned of “how the reported patently illegal orders will affect US service members.”
This image was posted on social media by President Donald Trump and shows a boat that was allegedly transporting cocaine off the coast of Venezuela when it was destroyed by US forces on September 2, 2025.
(Photo: President Donald Trump/Truth Social)
Jessica Corbett
Dec 01, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
While continuing to deny that the Pentagon chief ordered those carrying out the first known US military strike on an alleged drug-running boat to “kill everybody” on board, the top White House spokesperson on Monday reiterated the administration’s position that President Donald Trump has the authority to take out anyone he deems a “narco-terrorist.”
Rights advocates, legal scholars, American lawmakers, and leaders from other countries have condemned the boat bombings in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean, which began on September 2, as murders, and rejected the Trump administration’s argument to Congress that the strikes are justified because the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.
A week after the first bombing, the Intercept reported that people on board survived but were killed in a follow-up attack. The Washington Post provided more details on Friday, including that Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley ordered a second strike on two survivors to fulfill US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged directive to kill everyone.
CNN also spoke with an unnamed source who confirmed Hegseth’s supposed edict—which the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, denied on Monday.
During Monday’s press briefing, NBC News White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez noted Trump’s “confidence” in Hegseth’s claim that he did not give an explicit order to kill everyone on the first vessel, and asked Leavitt, “Does the administration deny that that second strike happened, or did it happen and the administration denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?”
“The latter is true,” Leavitt said. She then read a statement that she often referred back to throughout the briefing:
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question on September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Adm. Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.
“And I would just add one more point,” Leavitt continued, “to remind the American public why these lethal strikes are taking place: Because this administration has designated these narco-terrorists as a foreign terrorist organizations, the president has a right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America, and if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate—which is what they are doing.”
Asked by Gutierrez to confirm Bradley ordered the second strike, Leavitt did so, saying that “he was well within his right to do so.”
Multiple other reporters also inquired about the recent reporting, including Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, who said: “You said that the follow-up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors?”
Leavitt responded: “The strike conducted on September 2 was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
Noting that exchange on social media, former Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said: “This is not how self-defense works. Everyone understands that self-defense requires an immediate physical threat and proportionality. Repelling a missile attack with a missile is self-defense. Blowing up boats hundreds of miles from US shores is not. This isn’t complicated.”
“This is not how self-defense works... Repelling a missile attack with a missile is self-defense. Blowing up boats hundreds of miles from US shores is not.
Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon special counsel who’s now a New York University law professor and Just Security coeditor-in-chief, also weighed in. “This has got to be one of [the] most painful responses to watch,” he said, also pointing out that “the ‘law’ Leavitt cites is utterly irrelevant (self-defense is non sequitur, it’s not armed conflict, and ‘no survivors’ is a crime).”
“Part of the pain in watching that response is knowing how the reported patently illegal orders will affect US service members,” Goodman added, referring to a new Just Security essay by Mark P. Nevitt, a retired judge advocate general who is now an associate law professor at Emory University.
Notably, Trump suggested last month that Democratic members of Congress who previously served in the US military and intelligence service and recently warned service members of their duty not to comply with illegal orders should be hanged. The Pentagon has since threatened to court-martial one of them: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain.
c by CBS News senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang about Hegseth’s reported spoken directive to kill everybody on the boat. Using Trump’s preferred term for the Defense Department’s leader, she said: “I saw that quoted in a Washington Post story. I would reject that the secretary of war ever said that. However, the president has made it quite clear that if narco-terrorists... are trafficking illegal drugs toward the United States, he has the authority to kill them, and that’s what this administration is doing.”
According to a CNN timeline, from September 2 to November 15, at least 22 US boat strikes killed 83 people and left two survivors who were initially taken onto a warship but ultimately returned to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador.
So far, Congress has failed to advance war powers resolutions intended to stop Trump’s boat-bombing spree. However, since the Post reporting, top Democrats on both the US House and Senate Armed Services Committees have promised vigorous oversight.
Following Leavitt’s remarks on Monday, the New Republic‘s Greg Sargent said that “it’s doubly relevant that Adm. Bradley is in talks about briefing the House Armed Services Committee,” and pointed to his new interview with Congressman Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the panel’s ranking member.
The congressman told Sargent he will pressure GOP members of the committee, including Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), to “use whatever leverage is available to us to try to get answers,” including subpoenaing top civilian and military officials.
Smith also discussed the reporting during a weekend appearance on MS NOW. Posting a clip of it on social media Monday, he declared that “Americans want to live in a constitutional republic, not an authoritarian dictatorship.”
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber’s floor Monday that “I don’t think we have ever seen someone so unserious, so childish, so obviously insecure serving as secretary of defense as Pete Hegseth—and that should alarm every single one of us.”
Schumer called on Hegseth to release the tapes “that would show exactly what happened during these military strikes,” and to “come before the Congress to testify under oath about the nature of his order, the evidence supporting the strikes, and an explanation for what the goals are in Venezuela.”
Republicans Probe Alleged Hegseth Order to “Kill Everybody” as War Crimes Mount
“Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder,” one lawmaker said.
By Sharon Zhang ,
December 1, 2025
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrives for a briefing in the U.S. Capitol with Congressional leaders and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on military strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean, on Wednesday, November 5, 2025.Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call
Members of Congress have launched a bicameral, bipartisan effort to sharpen oversight of the Pentagon after a report on an alleged order by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “kill everybody” in the military’s boat strike campaign spurred widespread condemnation over the weekend.
The Republican-led Armed Services Committees in both the House and the Senate have announced that they are launching probes into the Department of Defense after The Washington Post reported on an alleged “double tap” strike on September 2, when the military first embarked on its Caribbean boat strike campaign.
On Friday, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) and ranking member Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) said that the “Committee has directed inquiries to the Department” following the report. They said the committee would be “conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts” surrounding the alleged strikes.
Further, in a joint statement Saturday, House committee chair Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Washington) said that they “take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.”
Experts have long said that the entire boat operation is illegal and amounts to war crimes and murder. Still, this marks a heel turn from previous remarks. Many Democrats have been critical of the boat strike operation, but Republicans have largely fallen in line thus far, despite the administration’s withholding of information from Congress regarding the aggression.
Related Story
Members of Congress have launched a bicameral, bipartisan effort to sharpen oversight of the Pentagon after a report on an alleged order by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “kill everybody” in the military’s boat strike campaign spurred widespread condemnation over the weekend.
The Republican-led Armed Services Committees in both the House and the Senate have announced that they are launching probes into the Department of Defense after The Washington Post reported on an alleged “double tap” strike on September 2, when the military first embarked on its Caribbean boat strike campaign.
On Friday, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) and ranking member Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) said that the “Committee has directed inquiries to the Department” following the report. They said the committee would be “conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts” surrounding the alleged strikes.
Further, in a joint statement Saturday, House committee chair Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Washington) said that they “take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.”
Experts have long said that the entire boat operation is illegal and amounts to war crimes and murder. Still, this marks a heel turn from previous remarks. Many Democrats have been critical of the boat strike operation, but Republicans have largely fallen in line thus far, despite the administration’s withholding of information from Congress regarding the aggression.
Related Story
Leavitt Says “All” Military Orders by Trump Must Be “Presumed to Be Legal”
The dubious claim comes despite officials within the administration saying that the boat strike operation is unlawful. By Sharon Zhang , Truthout November 25, 2025
The statements followed a report that a Special Operations commander ordered a second strike on a vessel off the coast of Trinidad after the live drone footage showed that two people had survived the initial blast. The order was reportedly given in order to follow through with Hegseth’s spoken command in the operation, which “was to kill everybody,” one source told The Washington Post.
The strike was reportedly carried out by SEAL Team 6, under the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which is responsible for some of the military’s most secretive operations.
The Intercept previously reported the “double tap” nature of the strike, but the latest revelations from the Post exposed JSOC’s supposed role in misrepresenting the strike to both the White House and members of Congress in closed door briefings. In those briefing materials, the military command said the second strike was “intended to sink the boat and remove a navigation hazard to other vessels.”
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Massachusetts), a House Armed Services Committee member who was privy to one of these briefings, said this explanation is “patently absurd,” and the strike “blatantly illegal.”
“Mark my words: It may take some time, but Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder,” he said.
Hegseth has denied wrongdoing. Trump said that he “wouldn’t have wanted” a second strike, but said that “Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.”
Legal experts and lawmakers have raised concerns that American soldiers may be prosecuted for carrying out orders in the boat strike operation that they deem illegal under both domestic and international law. Even if the initial strike were legal, former military lawyer Todd Huntley told the Post that the second strike “would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime” since the occupants weren’t able to fight back.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) has vowed to reintroduce his War Powers legislation seeking to bar President Donald Trump from carrying out further strikes in the operation or against Venezuela unless the administration obtains congressional approval. In an interview with CBS on Sunday, the senator said that he believes he will get more support for the resolution, which has already failed to pass the Senate twice.
“We think the escalating pace and some of the recent revelations — so, for example, the recent revelation about the ‘kill everyone’ order apparently dictated by Secretary Hegseth — we do believe that we will get more support for these motions when they are refiled,” he said.
The resolutions would be especially timely as the administration moves even further toward war. The U.S. has amassed a large amount of assets around Venezuela, and Trump declared on Saturday that the airspace above and around the country should be considered “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
As the U.S. aggression has mounted, however, so, too, have the legal concerns. In a joint statement following the report, a group of former military lawyers fired by the Trump administration said that the strike represents “war crimes” and could expose anyone involved in the strike to prosecution for murder.
“We call upon Congress to investigate and the American people to oppose any use of the U.S. military that involves the intentional targeting of anyone – enemy combatants, non-combatants, or civilians – rendered hors de combat (‘out of the fight’) as a result of their wounds or the destruction of the ship or aircraft carrying them,” the group said.
“We also advise our fellow citizens that orders like those described above are the kinds of ‘patently illegal orders’ all military members have a duty to disobey. Since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are ‘patently illegal,’ anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both,” they went on.
Daniel Hampton
December 1, 2025
RAW STORY
President Donald Trump repeated his call for U.S. troops to obey him after six Democrats released a video urging U.S. military and intelligence personnel to defy illegal orders.
The six lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, circulated a video online last month reminding service members that under U.S. law, they must disobey illegal orders and uphold the Constitution. The video sparked outrage on the right, who accused the lawmakers of urging troops to ignore orders in general from the president.
The group of lawmakers included Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst, and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a former Navy pilot and astronaut. It also included Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), an Army veteran; Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), a Navy veteran; and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), an Air Force veteran.
Trump initially responded forcefully, denouncing the video, calling the lawmakers “traitors,” and labeling their message “seditious.” He suggested their conduct could be “punishable by death.”
On Monday night, Trump doubled down.
" Mark Kelly and the group of Unpatriotic Politicians were WRONG to do what they did, and they know it! I hope the people looking at them are not duped into thinking that it’s OK to openly and freely get others to disobey the President of the United States!"
President Donald Trump repeated his call for U.S. troops to obey him after six Democrats released a video urging U.S. military and intelligence personnel to defy illegal orders.
The six lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, circulated a video online last month reminding service members that under U.S. law, they must disobey illegal orders and uphold the Constitution. The video sparked outrage on the right, who accused the lawmakers of urging troops to ignore orders in general from the president.
The group of lawmakers included Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst, and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a former Navy pilot and astronaut. It also included Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), an Army veteran; Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), a Navy veteran; and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), an Air Force veteran.
Trump initially responded forcefully, denouncing the video, calling the lawmakers “traitors,” and labeling their message “seditious.” He suggested their conduct could be “punishable by death.”
On Monday night, Trump doubled down.
" Mark Kelly and the group of Unpatriotic Politicians were WRONG to do what they did, and they know it! I hope the people looking at them are not duped into thinking that it’s OK to openly and freely get others to disobey the President of the United States!"
WSJ warns Trump may have shot himself in the foot with strikes
Robert Davis
December 1, 2025
December 1, 2025
RAW STORY
The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board on Monday slammed President Donald Trump's strikes against alleged drug boats in international waters and argued the move could backfire on the president.
The Trump administration has conducted more than a dozen strikes against alleged drug boats since taking office, moves that have killed nearly 100 people. The strikes have inspired significant debate among legal experts and have seemed to split Trump's MAGA base.
The Journal's editorial board argued that Trump deserves "wide latitude" on the strikes, but added that Trump risks losing support for the strikes because he has offered scant evidence to support his claims that they are justified.
"Our view is that the Commander in Chief deserves legal latitude as part of his constitutional war powers," the editorial board wrote. "But that doesn’t extend to shooting the wounded in violation of U.S. and international rules of war. The Pentagon’s own law of war manual prohibits 'hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors.' Such excesses will also turn the public against allowing a President the power he may someday need to defend the country’s interests quickly."
"The drug-boat war is presenting questions of presidential power and America’s role in the world that will continue long after President Trump leaves Washington, and good for lawmakers who appreciate the stakes," the editorial board added.
Read the entire editorial by clicking here.
The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board on Monday slammed President Donald Trump's strikes against alleged drug boats in international waters and argued the move could backfire on the president.
The Trump administration has conducted more than a dozen strikes against alleged drug boats since taking office, moves that have killed nearly 100 people. The strikes have inspired significant debate among legal experts and have seemed to split Trump's MAGA base.
The Journal's editorial board argued that Trump deserves "wide latitude" on the strikes, but added that Trump risks losing support for the strikes because he has offered scant evidence to support his claims that they are justified.
"Our view is that the Commander in Chief deserves legal latitude as part of his constitutional war powers," the editorial board wrote. "But that doesn’t extend to shooting the wounded in violation of U.S. and international rules of war. The Pentagon’s own law of war manual prohibits 'hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors.' Such excesses will also turn the public against allowing a President the power he may someday need to defend the country’s interests quickly."
"The drug-boat war is presenting questions of presidential power and America’s role in the world that will continue long after President Trump leaves Washington, and good for lawmakers who appreciate the stakes," the editorial board added.
Read the entire editorial by clicking here.
GOP senator demands answers after 'incompetent' White House backtrack on boat strikes
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt gestures during a press briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 9, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt gestures during a press briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 9, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
December 01, 2025
ALTERNET
Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, became the latest notable figure on Monday to hit back against the White House's claims about the "double tap" boat strike, wondering to Semafor if Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was "incompetent" or "lying."
Last week, the Washington Post reported that on September 2, U.S. forces fired on a vessel in the Caribbean Sea, then fired on it again when it was determined that some of the occupants had survived. This reportedly came as the result of a directive from Hegseth to "kill them all." These strikes, claimed with little evidence to be drug traffickers, had already been a source of major controversy for the Trump administration, but this report saw many experts accusing Hegseth of a war crime and outright murder.
Despite of Pentagon press representative initially denying the entire story, White Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Monday that the double strike had occurred, but stressed that the direct order came from Admiral Frank M. Bradley, based on a directive from Hegseth. She also claimed repeatedly that the strikes were done in accordance with laws governing armed conflict.
This resulted in a tidal wave of renewed criticism, with many accusing the administration of trying to protect Hegseth by throwing Bradley "under the bus" for the incident. The critiques came from all sides as well, as Semafor reporter Burgess Everett relayed in a post to X about a conversation with Paul. The reporter described the Republican, who has emerged as a frequent detractor of President Donald Trump, "really fired up about this."
"Yesterday they said, ‘absolutely Pete says he didn't do it,'" Paul said, according to Everett. "And then today, they admit that he did it. You think there would be ramifications. Was he incompetent enough not to know that it happened? Or was he lying yesterday?"
Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, became the latest notable figure on Monday to hit back against the White House's claims about the "double tap" boat strike, wondering to Semafor if Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was "incompetent" or "lying."
Last week, the Washington Post reported that on September 2, U.S. forces fired on a vessel in the Caribbean Sea, then fired on it again when it was determined that some of the occupants had survived. This reportedly came as the result of a directive from Hegseth to "kill them all." These strikes, claimed with little evidence to be drug traffickers, had already been a source of major controversy for the Trump administration, but this report saw many experts accusing Hegseth of a war crime and outright murder.
Despite of Pentagon press representative initially denying the entire story, White Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Monday that the double strike had occurred, but stressed that the direct order came from Admiral Frank M. Bradley, based on a directive from Hegseth. She also claimed repeatedly that the strikes were done in accordance with laws governing armed conflict.
This resulted in a tidal wave of renewed criticism, with many accusing the administration of trying to protect Hegseth by throwing Bradley "under the bus" for the incident. The critiques came from all sides as well, as Semafor reporter Burgess Everett relayed in a post to X about a conversation with Paul. The reporter described the Republican, who has emerged as a frequent detractor of President Donald Trump, "really fired up about this."
"Yesterday they said, ‘absolutely Pete says he didn't do it,'" Paul said, according to Everett. "And then today, they admit that he did it. You think there would be ramifications. Was he incompetent enough not to know that it happened? Or was he lying yesterday?"
Retired US Army JAG officer says Trump admin committed 'murder'
Retired U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG) officer Dan Maurer on CNN on December 1, 2025 (Image: Screengrab via CNN / YouTube)
One former U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG) officer is accusing President Donald Trump's administration of committing "murder" in international waters.
During a Monday interview with CNN host Boris Sanchez, Dan Maurer — an associate law professor at Northern Ohio University — said the September 2, 2025 strike in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly signed off on the killing of survivors adrift after their boat was hit with a missile (which was carried out by Admiral Frank Mitchell Bradley) was a flagrantly illegal act. Maurer specifically scoffed at the administration's justification that the strike was legal under U.S. and international law.
"I can't be more clear about how clear the law is on this. The attack on shipwrecked crew members — whether they are narco-terrorists designated by the president or not, whether they're war criminals or not — it doesn't matter," he said. "Killing them while shipwrecked while they're hors de combat, they're out of the fight, is a war crime."
Maurer went on to say that because the U.S. is not in an officially designated armed conflict, the strike was simply an "extrajudicial killing," or more simply, "murder." He added that nothing in U.S. law or international humanitarian law sanctioned the act, and that it was incumbent on Congress to investigate the attack.
"If the reporting is in fact accurate, what Secretary Hegseth did was essentially condone, or at least order a murder. What Admiral Bradley did was condone or at least order a murder. And everyone down that chain of command who participated in, who planned, who executed that strike, including the second strike — allegedly killing the shipwreck survivors — committed a crime," he said. "Whether it's a war crime or simply an offense under federal law, crimes have been committed. And what's scary is that I doubt very much that there will be any kind of criminal accountability for any of those involved under this administration.
Sanchez pointed out that the administration argued that the strikes were necessary in order to stop the flow of drugs into the U.S., and that had those bots shipped drugs into the country then there could be potentially thousands of American deaths in the future. Maurer countered that the harm described was "not imminent" and did not justify a self-defense argument.
"These drugs are flowing eventually into the United States, where they were sold illegally, bought illegally, used illegally. Not all of them result in deaths, nor do guns purchased illegally and then sold legally or illegally," he said. "... Frankly, the administration treats using the military kind of like they're playing Call of Duty where there are no constraints, there are no rules, there is no responsibility, and there is no accountability. But there are rules in warfare. There are rules in using force, whether it's a police action or a wartime action. And this administration has systematically ignored those rules, downplayed their importance and denigrated the rule of law."
Watch the segment below:
Retired U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG) officer Dan Maurer on CNN on December 1, 2025 (Image: Screengrab via CNN / YouTube)
December 01, 2025
ALTERNET
One former U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG) officer is accusing President Donald Trump's administration of committing "murder" in international waters.
During a Monday interview with CNN host Boris Sanchez, Dan Maurer — an associate law professor at Northern Ohio University — said the September 2, 2025 strike in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly signed off on the killing of survivors adrift after their boat was hit with a missile (which was carried out by Admiral Frank Mitchell Bradley) was a flagrantly illegal act. Maurer specifically scoffed at the administration's justification that the strike was legal under U.S. and international law.
"I can't be more clear about how clear the law is on this. The attack on shipwrecked crew members — whether they are narco-terrorists designated by the president or not, whether they're war criminals or not — it doesn't matter," he said. "Killing them while shipwrecked while they're hors de combat, they're out of the fight, is a war crime."
Maurer went on to say that because the U.S. is not in an officially designated armed conflict, the strike was simply an "extrajudicial killing," or more simply, "murder." He added that nothing in U.S. law or international humanitarian law sanctioned the act, and that it was incumbent on Congress to investigate the attack.
"If the reporting is in fact accurate, what Secretary Hegseth did was essentially condone, or at least order a murder. What Admiral Bradley did was condone or at least order a murder. And everyone down that chain of command who participated in, who planned, who executed that strike, including the second strike — allegedly killing the shipwreck survivors — committed a crime," he said. "Whether it's a war crime or simply an offense under federal law, crimes have been committed. And what's scary is that I doubt very much that there will be any kind of criminal accountability for any of those involved under this administration.
Sanchez pointed out that the administration argued that the strikes were necessary in order to stop the flow of drugs into the U.S., and that had those bots shipped drugs into the country then there could be potentially thousands of American deaths in the future. Maurer countered that the harm described was "not imminent" and did not justify a self-defense argument.
"These drugs are flowing eventually into the United States, where they were sold illegally, bought illegally, used illegally. Not all of them result in deaths, nor do guns purchased illegally and then sold legally or illegally," he said. "... Frankly, the administration treats using the military kind of like they're playing Call of Duty where there are no constraints, there are no rules, there is no responsibility, and there is no accountability. But there are rules in warfare. There are rules in using force, whether it's a police action or a wartime action. And this administration has systematically ignored those rules, downplayed their importance and denigrated the rule of law."
Watch the segment below:
Trump's legal argument to justify strikes 'does not support' current operations: GOP rep
Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) on CNN on December 1, 2025
Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) on CNN on December 1, 2025
December 01, 2025
ALTERNET
One high-ranking Republican member of the House of Representatives is now saying that President Donald Trump's administration is acting outside its own established legal boundaries, if recent reporting about a September strike is to be believed.
The Washington Post reported recently that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered Admiral Frank M. Bradley to carry out a secondary strike on survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat the U.S. military destroyed on September 2, 2025. If true, that would likely be a violation of rules 46 and 47 of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which ban "no-quarter" orders and firing on anyone who is considered hors de combat ("out of the fight"), respectively.
In a Monday segment on CNN, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) — who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and who used to chair the House Intelligence Committee — told host Erin Burnett that his committee is currently making inquiries about the attack with the Department of Defense. He added that if the report is true, it would directly conflict the administration's own legal justification for the strikes themselves.
"The legal opinion that was provided to Congress and the justification that the administration is utilizing ... does not support the operations ... of this second strike," Turner said. "So that's why we have to give it critical review to determine what actually happened, because it's very serious here, as to the divergence between the legal justification that the department was operating under and then what could have occurred here."
In addition to Turner's committee, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) also announced in a joint statement that their committee would be conducting its own inquiry with the Pentagon. Turner called the allegations "very serious," and further denounced Hegseth for making light of it in a cartoon he posted to his official X account.
"I was obviously very disappointed and I thought it was very inappropriate that a cartoon would be used in this manner of something that's obviously very serious," Turner said.
Watch the segment below:
The Washington Post reported recently that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered Admiral Frank M. Bradley to carry out a secondary strike on survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat the U.S. military destroyed on September 2, 2025. If true, that would likely be a violation of rules 46 and 47 of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which ban "no-quarter" orders and firing on anyone who is considered hors de combat ("out of the fight"), respectively.
In a Monday segment on CNN, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) — who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and who used to chair the House Intelligence Committee — told host Erin Burnett that his committee is currently making inquiries about the attack with the Department of Defense. He added that if the report is true, it would directly conflict the administration's own legal justification for the strikes themselves.
"The legal opinion that was provided to Congress and the justification that the administration is utilizing ... does not support the operations ... of this second strike," Turner said. "So that's why we have to give it critical review to determine what actually happened, because it's very serious here, as to the divergence between the legal justification that the department was operating under and then what could have occurred here."
In addition to Turner's committee, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) also announced in a joint statement that their committee would be conducting its own inquiry with the Pentagon. Turner called the allegations "very serious," and further denounced Hegseth for making light of it in a cartoon he posted to his official X account.
"I was obviously very disappointed and I thought it was very inappropriate that a cartoon would be used in this manner of something that's obviously very serious," Turner said.
Watch the segment below:
No comments:
Post a Comment