Brown grass cost a famed golf course a big tournament and highlighted Hawaii water

 problems

JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER
Sat, November 29, 2025

AP

FILE - Justin Thomas hits from the seventh tee during the first round of the Tournament of Champions golf tournament at Kapalua Plantation Course on Kapalua, Hawaii, Jan. 7, 2016. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

FILE - Jon Rahm, of Spain, hits from the 13th fairway during the final round of the Tournament of Champions golf event, Jan. 9, 2022, at Kapalua Plantation Course in Kapalua, Hawaii. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

FILE - A Kapalua Ridge Villas sign is viewed on Oct. 3, 2023, in Lahaina, Hawaii. (AP Photo/Mengshin Lin, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

HONOLULU (AP) — High up on the slopes of the west Maui mountains, the Plantation Course at Kapalua Resort provides golfers with expansive ocean views. The course is so renowned that The Sentry, a $20 million signature event for the PGA Tour, had been held there nearly every year for more than a quarter-century.

“You have to see it to believe it," said Ann Miller, a former longtime Honolulu newspaper golf writer. “You're looking at other islands, you're looking at whales. ... Every view is beautiful.”

Its world-class status also depends on keeping the course green.

But with water woes in west Maui — facing drought and still reeling from a deadly 2023 wildfire that ravaged the historic town of Lahaina — keeping the course green enough for The Sentry became difficult.

Ultimately, as the Plantation's fairways and greens grew brown, the PGA Tour canceled the season opener, a blow that cost what officials estimate to be $50 million economic impact on the area.

A two-month closure and some rain helped get the course in suitable condition to reopen 17 holes earlier this month to everyday golfers who pay upwards of $469 to play a round. The 18th hole is set to reopen Monday, but the debate is far from over about the source of the water used to keep the course green and what its future looks like amid climate change.

Questions about Hawaii's golf future

There’s concern that other high-profile tournaments will also bow out, taking with them economic benefits, such as money for charities, Miller said.

“It could literally change the face of it,” she said, “and it could change the popularity, obviously, too.”

The company that owns the courses, along with Kapalua homeowners and Hua Momona Farms, filed a lawsuit in August alleging Maui Land & Pineapple, which operates the century-old system of ditches that provides irrigation water to Kapalua and its residents, has not kept up repairs, affecting the amount of water getting down from the mountain.

MLP has countersued and the two sides have exchanged accusations since then.

As the water-delivery dispute plays out in court, Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental legal group, is calling attention to a separate issue involving the use of drinking water for golf course irrigation, particularly irksome to residents contending with water restrictions amid drought, including Native Hawaiians who consider water a sacred resource.

“Potable ground drinking water needs to be used for potable use,” Lauren Palakiko, a west Maui taro farmer, told the Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management at a recent meeting. “I can’t stress enough that it should never be pumped, injuring our aquifer for the sake of golf grass or vacant mansion swimming pools.”

‘This is water that we can drink’

Kapalua's Plantation and Bay courses, owned by TY Management Corp., have historically been irrigated with surface water delivered under an agreement with Maui Land & Pineapple, but since at least the summer have been using millions of gallons of potable groundwater, according to Earthjustice attorneys who point to correspondence from commission Chairperson Dawn Chang to MLP and Hawaii Water Service they say confirms it.

Chang said her letter didn't authorize anything, but merely acknowledged an “oral representation" that using groundwater is an an “existing use” at times when there’s not enough surface water. She is asking for supporting documentation from MLP and Hawaii Water Service to confirm that interpretation.

In emails to The Associated Press, MLP said it did not believe groundwater could be used for golf course irrigation and Hawaii Water Service said it didn’t communicate to the commission that using groundwater to irrigate the courses was an existing use.

MLP's two wells that service the course provide potable water.

“This is water that we can drink. It’s an even more precious resource within the sacred resource of wai,” Dru Hara, an Earthjustice attorney said, using the Hawaiian word for water.

Recycled water solutions

TY, owned by Japanese billionaire and apparel brand Uniqlo’s founder Tadashi Yanai, doesn't have control over what kind of water is in the reservoir they draw upon for irrigation, TY General Manager Kenji Yui said in a statement. They're also researching ways to bring recycled water to Kapalua for irrigation.

Kamanamaikalani Beamer, a former commissioner, said he's troubled by Earthjustice's allegations that proper procedures weren't followed.

The wrangling over water for golf shows that courses in Hawaii need to change their relationship with water, Beamer said: “I think there needs to be a time very soon that all golf courses are utilizing at a minimum recycled water.”

Donald Trump’s golf bill for the American taxpayer is on eye-popping pace

HuffPost said that current total sits at $70.8 million.

Brian Linder

Sun, November 30, 2025 

Donald Trump loves to golf and that does not come cheap for the American people.

In fact, according to a recent analysis by HuffPost, the president has spent nearly $71 million of taxpayer money hitting the links this year. And, per the report, that puts him on pace to shell out a whopping $300 million on golf during his second term in office.

To put that in perspective, Trump spent an estimated $151.5 million golfing during his first term, so he is on pace to double that figure.

“I really wish I could tell you that it would make anyone in America change their mind about him, but the corruption is so backed in, so endemic, and so ludicrous that it feels like the collective reaction will be a shrug,” Republican consultant Rick Wilson said per HuffPost. “It’s one more example of Trump defining the presidency down. Way, way down.”

According to HuffPost, Trump golfed at his Palm Beach County course, just four miles from Mar-a-Lago, last week. The outlet reported that each golfing trip costs $3.4 million in travel and security expenses. Trump has made 16 trips to Mar-a-Lago, where he typically goes before golfing at courses in West Palm Beach and Jupiter, and nine to his course in Bedminster, New Jersey. The outlet said each of those trips cost about $1.1 million. HuffPost said Trump’s trip to Aberdeen, Scotland for the opening of a new course cost nearly $10 million.

HuffPost said that current total sits at $70.8 million.

The outlet’s estimate comes in at a far lower total than the website DidTrumpGolfToday.com which tracks the president’s golf trips and estimates that he has spent $107,800,000.

HuffPost came to its estimate by using figures from a 2019 Government Accountability Office report that examined Trump’s first four trips to Mar-a-Lago during his first administration. You can see the report, here. It calculated that each of those trips cost $3,383,250, and that was based on 2017 dollars meaning that the actual cost today is likely higher than the estimate.

The costs involved with him golfing in Florida include flying in on Air Force One. Also, per the site, the military flies the vehicles for his motorcade in on C-17s each time he makes the trip. Also, because Mar-a-Lago, where Trump stays while he plays at his courses, is on the water, police boats with machine guns and a Coast Guard vessel have to be called in to patrol. The site said additional costs included law enforcement and bomb sniffing dogs.

Ford workers told their CEO ‘none of the young people want to work here.’ So Jim Farley took a page out of the founder’s playbook

Sasha Rogelberg
Fri, November 28, 2025


How serious is the skilled trades worker shortage?

What were the outcomes of Ford's 2023 strike?

What inspired Ford's recent employment policy changes?

Why are young Ford workers taking Amazon shifts?

Ford CEO Jim Farley learned from older employees that some young workers at the carmaker were taking shifts at Amazon to make ends meet, he said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Farley said he drew on founder Henry Ford’s decision to raise factory wages to $5 a day in 1914 to make temporary workers into full-time employees. Young people have previously eschewed manufacturing jobs due to low wages.

Some economists credit carmaker Henry Ford for jump-starting the American middle class in the 20th century when, in January 1914, he hiked factory wages to $5, more than double the average wage for an eight-hour work day.

More than 100 years later, facing the reality of many employees “barely getting by,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said he took a page out of the founder’s playbook.

The carmaker’s chief executive recognized the need to make a change in his workplace when he spoke to veteran employees during union contract negotiations and learned young Ford employees were working multiple jobs and getting inadequate sleep due to low wages, Farley said in an interview with journalist and biographer Walter Isaacson at the Aspen Ideas Festival earlier this year.

“The older workers who’d been at the company said, ‘None of the young people want to work here. Jim, you pay $17 an hour, and they are so stressed,’” Farley said.

Farley learned some workers also held jobs at Amazon, where they worked for eight hours before clocking in to a seven-hour shift at Ford, sleeping for only three or four hours. At a Ford Pro Accelerate event in September, the CEO said entry-level factory workers told him they were working up to three jobs.

As a result, the company made temporary workers into full-time employees, making them eligible for higher wages, profit-sharing checks, and better health care coverage. The transition was outlined in 2019 contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers (UAW), with temporary workers able to become full-time after two years of continuous employment at Ford.

“It wasn’t easy to do,” Farley said. “It was expensive. But I think that’s the kind of changes we need to make in our country.”

Ford’s own decision to double factory wages in 1914 was not altruistic, but rather a strategy to attract a stable workforce, as well as provide a stimulus for his own workers to be able to afford Ford products.

“He said, ‘I’m doing this because I want my factory worker to buy my cars. If they make enough money, they’ll buy my own product,’” Farley said. “It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way.”
Trouble attracting Gen Z trade workers

Farley, a proponent of growing U.S. manufacturing productivity to support the essential economy, has advocated for young workers to have strong trade experiences. Earlier this month, he sounded the alarm on the shortage of manual labor jobs, saying in an episode of the Office Hours: Business Edition podcast that Ford had 5,000 open mechanic positions that have remain unfilled, despite an up-to $120,000 salary for the role.

“Our governments have to get really serious about investing in trade schools and skilled trades,” he said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. “You go to Germany, every one of our factory workers has an apprentice starting in junior high school. Every one of those jobs has a person behind it for eight years that is trained.”

Despite the U.S. seeing 3.8 million new manufacturing jobs by 2033, according to Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, the younger generation of workers has largely turned away from the career path. As as some ditch college degrees, Gen Z enrollment in trade schools is on the rise, but the newest generation entering the workforce is largely eschewing factory jobs, citing low wages, according to a 2023 Soter Analytics study. U.S. manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have an average $25-per-hour wage—about $51,890 per year—falling short of the average American salary of $66,600.

American carmakers like Ford may be trying to make it appealing for young workers to embark on manufacturing careers, but they are still not immune to workers’ grievances over wages. In 2023, thousands of UAW members, including 16,600 Ford employees, went on strike before reaching a contract deal in October of that year, which, beyond increasing wages, also further decreased the period of time necessary for a temp worker to become full-time.

Farley called the strike “completely unnecessary” from management’s perspective and maintained the onus of improving trade workers’ wages isn’t just on Ford.

“We’re not just going to hope it gets better,” he said. “We have the resources, and we have the know-how, after 120 years, to solve these problems, but we need more help from others.”

A version of this story originally published on Fortune.com on June 30, 2025.

More on Gen Z work trends:

Gen Z college graduates are entering the toughest job market in years—here’s how they can stand out

‘The kids aren’t alright,’ warns top economist, as unemployed, pessimistic Gen Z living with parents blow a $12 billion hole in consumption


With entry-level hiring shrinking, Gen Z turns to double majoring for protection from AI

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Guy Who Makes His Living Selling Jeeps And Rams Says We Can't Get Rid Of ICE Cars

Matthew DeBord
Fri, November 28, 2025
 Jalopnik.


Stellantis Chairman John Elkann seen at an F1 race in 2024 - Kym Illman/Getty Images

The slowdown in EV sales has created some real headaches for automakers, but in Europe the difficulties are especially acute. And now Stellantis Chairman John Elkann is insisting that the industry needs more time to get its act together when it comes to the region's carbon-reduction goals.

"There is another way to cut emissions in Europe in a constructive and agreed way, restoring the growth we have lost and meeting people's needs," Elkann said during an event on Nov. 25 to mark the start of production of the new hybrid version of the Fiat 500 battery-electric car. The auto industry's proposals include allowing plug-in hybrids, extended-range EVs and alternative fuels to be sold beyond 2035 when a planned zero emissions mandate will ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars across the EU.

Elkann also dispensed some ominous warnings about what could happen if the EU doesn't go along with his recommendations, insisting that staying the course could lead to "irreversible decline." Yikes!

Europe problems and Stellantis problems

Fiat 500 vehicles seen at a factory in Italy - Stefano Guidi/Getty Images

As Reuters pointed out, current projections for 2024 vehicle registrations in Europe are running about three million below where they were in 2019. The overall market is sluggish, and yet it's supposed to be in a process of transformation, moving away from combustion technologies and toward electrification. The arrival of cheap EVs from China is complicating the situation.

Stellantis itself is also in a state of corporate struggle. Former CEO Carlos Tavares departed last year, and his replacement, Antonio Filosa, is still finding his footing. This has placed Elkann in the awkward position of assuming a higher profile than perhaps he thinks is ideal. He has to fix the family car business, which was formed through mergers of Fiat and Chrysler, then a combination of the resulting FCA conglomerate with the PSA Group. In this role, he now has to also serve as a sort of industrial statesman, dealing with the EU and the governments of Italy and France, as well as contending with the U.S., where Stellantis relies on big pickups and SUVs to drive sales and profits.
Elkann isn't alone

BMW workers assemble a vehicle at a factory in Germany - Leonhard Simon/Getty Images

EVs were supposed to help Europe move away from diesels, in the aftermath of Volkswagen's dieselgate scandal. The EU has tariffed Chinese EV imports to protect the continent's carmakers, but China has engaged a multifaceted strategy, exporting combustion vehicles to markets such as Italy and Spain, where the Middle Kingdom thinks it can take market share against weaker competition. In this context, Stellantis risks being unable to challenge the Chinese on ICE vehicles if the European automaking giant doesn't continue to invest in combustion platforms because it has to drop them to meet EV mandates. Elkann is of course far from alone: every European carmaker is up against the same dilemma. The transition was always going to be precarious, and that's why European regulators thought the 2035 deadline would give automakers enough time to prepare for a massive shift away from burning petrol.

But projections for EV sales turned out to be overly optimistic, and now the European auto industry is dealing with the fact that it was never structured for such an aggressive timeline. The implications are alarming, especially on the economic side. As Wired reported earlier this year, the industry "employs 13.8 million people across Europe and represents around 7 percent of the continent's GDP." Everything is now pushing up against a December review of emissions goals, so it's hardly surprising the Elkann has taken the opportunity to use some strong language to beg for breathing room.

 Peru to declare a state of emergency as migrants leaving Chile trigger backlash

NAYARA BATSCHKE and DAVID PEREDA ZAVALETA
Fri, November 28, 2025 

AP

Migrants, mostly from Venezuela, wait to cross into Peru at the Chacalluta border crossing point in Arica, Chile, Friday, Nov. 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Ibar Silva)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Migrants, mostly from Venezuela, wait to cross into Peru at the Chacalluta border crossing point in Arica, Chile, Friday, Nov. 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Ibar Silva)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Migrants, mostly from Venezuela, wait to cross into Peru at the Chacalluta border crossing point in Arica, Chile, Friday, Nov. 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Ibar Silva)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

A police officer directs traffic at the Chacalluta border crossing point in Arica, Chile, Friday, Nov. 28, 2025, as migrants mostly from Venezuela wait to cross into Peru. (AP Photo/Ibar Silva)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)


Migrants, mostly from venezuela, wait to cross into Peru at the Chacalluta border crossing point in Arica, Chile, Friday, Nov. 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Ibar Silva)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — President José Jerí of Peru said his government on Friday would declare a state of emergency along the country's southern border and deploy more armed forces to the area as a large number of Venezuelan migrants venture north from Chile, where anti-immigrant sentiment has surged during a fraught presidential campaign.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants fleeing crises in their home countries or seeking better opportunities abroad long have traversed the continent and the Peruvian border to build new lives in Chile, one of Latin America’s most stable and prosperous nations.

But scores of people without legal status in Chile — mostly Venezuelans who abandoned their country's economic ruin and authoritarian rule in recent years — are now also headed in the other direction as Chile prepares to harden its stance against immigration.

The favorite to win Chile's presidential runoff on Dec. 14, ultraconservative lawyer José Antonio Kast, has built his campaign around popular fears over immigration from Venezuela and a rise in organized crime. He filmed a campaign video at Chile's porous desert border with Peru last week, warning immigrants without formal status to get out of the country while they still can.

“You have 111 days to leave Chile voluntarily,” Kast said in the ad, referring to the number of days until a new administration takes over from current left-wing President Gabriel Boric. “If not, we will stop you, we will detain you, we will expel you. You will leave with only the clothes on your back.”

Soon Peruvian media was awash with images of migrant families rushing north from Chile into Peru, their belongings stuffed in backpacks and garbage bags.

Within days, Jerí traveled to the same area to inspect border controls and sent armed forces to boost security operations.

Residents in Chile’s northern border towns reported growing chaos as crowds of people who left Chile but lacked permission to enter Peru were stranded in limbo. On Friday, Jerí convened his Cabinet to declare a state of emergency in the region.

There is no clear figure for how many people have decided to leave Chile against the backdrop of Kast’s threats of mass deportations and what immigration lawyers describe as increased xenophobia in the South American country, home to 18.5 million people.

On Friday, Kast released a new video repeating his warning to immigrants and urging Boric to intervene. Peruvian Foreign Minister Hugo de Zela dismissed his comments, saying that a presidential candidate “cannot speak on behalf of the Chilean government.”

More in World


New study reveals extent and nature of online sexual victimization of Canadian teens
CBC



GOP senators to join Democrats in investigating Pete Hegseth ‘kill everybody’ allegations
The Independent10K


When asked how Kast's campaign impacted the outflow of migrants, Chilean Minister of Security Luis Cordero responded that “rhetoric sometimes has consequences.”

“People cannot be used as a means to create controversy for the elections,” he said. “Our main purpose is to prevent a humanitarian crisis.”

___

Pereda Zavaleta reported from Lima, Peru

Experts doubt the Pentagon can punish Kelly over the 'illegal orders' video

BEN FINLEY and GARY FIELDS
Sat, November 29, 2025



FILE - Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/John McDonnell, File)


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon’s investigation of Sen. Mark Kelly over a video that urges American troops to defy “illegal orders” has raised a slew of questions, and some criticism, from legal experts.

Some say the Pentagon is misreading military law to go after Kelly as a retired Navy fighter pilot. Others say the Arizona Democrat cannot be prosecuted as a member of Congress. A group of former military prosecutors insists he did nothing wrong.

The Pentagon announced the investigation last week after President Donald Trump’s social media post accusing Kelly — and the five other Democratic lawmakers in the video — of sedition “punishable by DEATH.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Kelly was facing investigation because he is the only one in that group who formally retired from the military and is still under the Pentagon’s jurisdiction.

Kelly dismissed the inquiry as the work of “bullies” and said it would not deter him and other members of Congress “from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable.”

‘It’s not totally unheard of’

Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, said there has been a “significant uptick” in courts-martial of retired service members in the past decade. While courts have debated the constitutionality, the practice is currently allowed. He said there have been roughly a dozen such prosecutions across the service branches.

There are roughly 2 million people who formally retired from the military and receive retirement pay, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. Service members are generally entitled to retirement pay after completing 20 years of active duty.

Todd Huntley, a retired Navy captain and judge advocate general, or JAG, said it is rare to prosecute retirees for something that happened after they retired.

“It’s not totally unheard of,” said Huntley, who now directs Georgetown’s national security law program. “I actually prosecuted a enlisted guy who had been retired for 16 years. He was essentially assaulting his adopted daughter. Basically no one else had jurisdiction so we prosecuted him.”

A ‘ridiculous conclusion’

Colby Vokey, a prominent civilian military lawyer and former military prosecutor, said Hegseth appears to be misreading the Uniform Code of Military Justice to justify the Kelly investigation.

Vokey said Hegseth has personal jurisdiction over Kelly because Kelly is entitled to retirement pay. But Vokey said Hegseth lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Kelly made his statements as a senator.

Vokey said case law has evolved to where the military can prosecute an active-duty service member for a crime committed off base, such as robbing a convenience store. But applying military law to a retired service member and “assuming that means every offense ever is kind of a ridiculous conclusion.”

“Let’s say you have a 100-year-old World War II veteran who is retired with pay and he steals a candy bar,” Vokey said. “Hegseth could bring him back and court-martial him. And that in effect is what is happening with Kelly.”

Patrick McLain, a retired Marine Corps judge and former federal prosecutor, said the cases he has seen of retirees being called back “are more like extreme examples of fraud or some of these child pornography cases.”

“I’ve not seen anything like the kind of the wackadoodle thing they’re trying to do to Sen. Kelly for essentially exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, which they don’t like,” McLain said.

‘He did it as a civilian’

Charles Dunlap, a Duke University law professor and retired Air Force lawyer, said in an email that military law can restrict speech for service members that is protected for civilians under the First Amendment.

But even if the video was found to have violated military law, a key issue may be whether the law can be applied to someone who is retired, Dunlap said.

A group of former military lawyers, the Former JAGs Working Group, said in a statement that Kelly did not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“The video simply described the law as it pertains to lawful versus unlawful orders,” the group said. “It did not suborn mutiny or otherwise encourage military members to disregard or disobey lawful orders issued to them.”

Troops, especially uniformed commanders, have specific obligations to reject orders that are unlawful. Broad legal precedence also holds that just following orders — colloquially known as the “Nuremberg defense,” as it was used unsuccessfully by senior Nazi officials to justify their actions under Adolf Hitler — does not absolve troops.

Kelly and the other lawmakers did not mention specific circumstances in the video. Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s attempts to send National Guard troops into U.S. cities. Kelly has pointedly questioned the use of the military to attack alleged drug boats off South America’s coast, saying he was worried about the military officers involved with the mission and whether they were following orders that may have been illegal.

Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, said any case brought against Kelly likely would be thrown out or end in an acquittal.

O’Hanlon said it might not have been politically smart to “wave a red flag in front of the bull” but he does not see the legal grounds for a court martial.

“Saying that you shouldn’t break the law cannot be a crime,” O’Hanlon said. “But in addition, he did not do it as a military officer. He did it as a civilian.”

Separation of powers

Kelly’s status as a senator could block the Pentagon’s investigation because of constitutional protections for the separation of powers in the U.S government.

The Constitution explicitly shields members of Congress from White House overreach, said Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University.

“Having a United States senator subject to discipline at the behest of the secretary of defense and the president — that violates a core principle of legislative independence,” Kreis said in a telephone interview.

Kreis said such protections were a reaction to the British monarchy, which arbitrarily punished members of Parliament.

”Any way you cut it, the Constitution is fundamentally structurally designed to prevent this kind of abuse,” Kreis said.

Sen. Mark Kelly says Trump and Hegseth are 'not serious people' amid military video investigation

Alexandra Marquez
Sun, November 30, 2025

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Sunday that President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are “not serious people” in response to their comments about a video Kelly and several fellow Democrats made earlier this month urging military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.”

“This president thinks he can bully and intimidate people, and he is not going to, he’s not going to stop me from speaking out and holding him accountable for the things that he does that are wrong and unlawful,” Kelly told NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

Officials at the Defense Department earlier this month said they were launching an investigation into Kelly after President Donald Trump accused him and several other lawmakers of “seditious behavior,” a charge that the president said could be “punishable by death.”

The president later walked back his comments, telling conservative radio host Brian Kilmeade that he was not threatening the lawmakers with death.

The accusations from Trump came after several Democratic lawmakers — all of whom are military veterans or former intelligence officials — released a video urging current military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders,” adding, “no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

The FBI has also sought to schedule interviews with six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in the video, which includes Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania.

In the video, the lawmakers didn’t specify what illegal orders they might be referring to, and on Sunday, Kelly said that the video was “looking forward,” not referencing any potential illegal orders that may have already been given during this administration.

Still, Kelly cited comments Trump made on the debate stage during the 2016 Republican presidential primary, where the then-candidate said he would be able to get the military to comply with his orders, even if they were illegal under international law.

“If I say do it, they’re gonna do it,” Trump said at the time. “That’s what leadership is all about.”

“They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me,” he added.

Kelly also referenced a comment Trump made earlier this year saying that the military should use “dangerous” U.S. cities as “training grounds.”

“We’re concerned because of this president, with this secretary of defense, we could have a significant problem. So this was a simple message, ‘Follow the law,’ and it was looking forward,” Kelly said Sunday.

Hegseth called the original video from the Democratic lawmakers “despicable, reckless, and false” in a post on X earlier this month.

Kelly called Hegseth “the least qualified secretary of defense in the history of our country by far.”

In a separate interview on CNN Sunday, Kelly said he had not yet been notified by the Navy about an investigation into his conduct based on the video.

"I was notified about this through a tweet, the same tweet that you saw, and that demonstrates how unserious this administration is," Kelly told CNN. "They care more about the publicity about this than the process or the law. I haven’t been notified by the Navy."

The Department of Defense didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

On "Meet the Press" Sunday, the Arizona senator referenced his own service in the Navy, where he said he sank ships.

“Never once did I question whether those orders were legal or illegal. People can tell the difference — should be able to tell the difference between something that is unlawful and something that is lawful,” he said. “And if I was ever given an unlawful order, I would refuse.”

Asked about reporting in The Washington Post over the weekend that Hegseth ordered a Navy SEAL team to “kill everybody” on a boat suspected of carrying drugs to the U.S. in September — the first strike in a monthslong campaign against alleged drug-ferrying boats — Kelly said, “I hope that the reporting is not accurate,” and called for an investigation.

“We’re going to put these folks under oath, and we’re going to find out what happened. And then there needs to be accountability,” Kelly said, pointing to the fact that the House and Senate armed services committees have launched inquiries looking into the Washington Post’s reporting.

Powerful Republican Turns on Pentagon Pete’s ‘Kill’ Orders

Adam Downer
Sat, November 29, 2025 

DAILY BEAST

Anna Rose Layden / Stringer, FELIX LEON / Getty Images

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s alleged order to “kill” everyone aboard a suspected Venezuelan drug boat is slated to face intense oversight by the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee.

SASC chair Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, and SASC member Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, released a joint statement Friday promising “vigorous oversight” into the facts regarding a Sept. 2 drug boat strike in which the U.S. killed everyone aboard a suspected narcotics vessel, then killed the two survivors of its first attack with another missile.

Roger Wicker (left) and Jack Reed (right) promised

“The committee is aware of recent news reports—and the Department of Defense’s initial response—regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility," reads the statement.

“The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

The SASC's statement promising

On Friday, the Washington Post reported that on Sept. 2, Pete Hegseth ordered that the U.S. military kill everyone on board a boat suspected of carrying narcotics off the coast of Trinidad.

A missile struck the vessel and killed nine of the eleven people aboard the ship. When the Special Operations commander overseeing the attack realized there were two survivors in the water, he fired a second shot to comply with Hegseth’s order, killing the remaining survivors.

The order may amount to a war crime—and therefore punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or death, per the U.S.’s definition of war crimes, which can apply to U.S. nationals and armed service members.

Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer, told the Post that the attack “amounts to murder,” because Venezuela and the U.S. are not in an armed conflict.

The order to kill everyone on board “would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime,” he said.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted the orders were legal and the Washington Post was putting out

Hegseth, 45, brushed off the report as “fake news,” saying on X, “As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”

He also defended the legality of the attack by saying, “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” and, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command."

Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman and Senior Adviser, said on Friday, “We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday. These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth. Fake News is the enemy of the people.”

The protocol for future suspected drug boat strikes was altered after the Sept. 2 attack, and the military was instructed to detain any survivors.

Though the attacks have garnered bipartisan frustration, it’s unclear what the Senate Armed Services Committee could do if it concludes Hegseth’s strikes were illegal.
le104

In the weeks following the attack, President Trump, 79, attempted to retroactively insulate those responsible from legal consequences by informing Congress that the U.S. was in a “non-international armed conflict” with “designated terrorist organizations,” and therefore those who killed suspected narcotics traffickers would be exempt from criminal prosecution.

“That’s one of the problems with the law of armed conflict — the state using force is judge, jury, and executioner,” said Huntley.

‘Kill Everybody’: Hegseth Reportedly Ordered SEAL Team 6 to Leave No Survivors After Caribbean Boat Strike

Ahmad Austin Jr.
Fri, November 28, 2025 

MEDIAITE

(Ricardo Hernandez/AP photo/screenshot)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly ordered SEAL Team 6 to kill every individual aboard a suspected drug-trafficking boat.

In a Friday report from The Washington Post, sources described the scene and aftermath of the Trump administration’s first Caribbean airstrike in September.

Those with knowledge of the inner workings of the operation claimed Hegseth explicitly told the SEAL Team to leave no survivors. The Washington Post report continued:


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

A missile screamed off the coast of Trinidad, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

Not long after the two survivors came into view, the Special Operations commander overseeing the attack reportedly ordered a second strike. The two men, sources said, were “blown apart in the water.”

As noted in the report, Trump posted a short video of the strike shortly after. The video notably excluded the follow-up strike. That, according to one source, could have dramatically changed public opinion. The report continued:

In one Oct. 16 strike in the Atlantic Ocean that killed two, another two men were captured and repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador. In a series of strikes on four boats in the eastern Pacific on Oct. 27 that killed 14 men, one apparent survivor was left to the Mexican Coast Guard to retrieve. The body was never found.

If the video of the blast that killed the two survivors on Sept. 2 were made public, people would be horrified, said one person who watched the live feed.

The Washington Post also reached out to the Pentagon for comment on the story. In a statement, Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell claimed the “entire narrative is completely false” and that the missions to eliminate suspected drug boats “have been a resounding success.”

The post ‘Kill Everybody’: Hegseth Reportedly Ordered SEAL Team 6 to Leave No Survivors After Caribbean Boat Strike first appeared on Mediaite.


Kaine says reported second Venezuela strike could be "a war crime if it's true"

Kaia Hubbard
Sun, November 30, 2025



Washington — Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Sunday that a reported U.S. follow-on strike on an alleged drug boat earlier this year "rises to the level of a war crime if it's true."

"If that reporting is true, it's a clear violation of the DoD's own laws of war, as well as international laws about the way you treat people who are in that circumstance," Kaine said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan."

The Washington Post reported Friday that in the U.S.' first strike on a suspected drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean in September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a verbal order to leave no survivors. A follow-on strike was ordered to comply with the instructions, killing two survivors in the water, the Post reported. Hegseth called the reporting "fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory," claiming the operations in the Caribbean are "lawful under both U.S. and international law."

CBS News has not independently confirmed the Washington Post's reporting.

Targeting civilians or members of the armed forces who are wounded is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, which also require the wounded to be "collected and cared for." A group of former military lawyers outlined in an assessment Saturday that the reported second strike would be a violation of international or domestic law. And the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees pledged to investigate the reported follow-on strike.

Since the first strike on Sept. 2, the U.S. has carried out close to two dozen boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean. Kaine outlined to CBS News' chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes that lawmakers have been seeking answers to a number of questions about the strikes, including seeking evidence that "the folks on board were really narco traffickers," the question of why to strike rather than interdict, and the legal rationale for the strikes.

"We had to pry with a crowbar after weeks and weeks out of the administration, the supposed legal rationale for the strikes at international waters," Kaine said. "It was very shoddy."

The Virginia Democrat said "it's time for Congress to rein in a president who is deciding to wage war on his own say-so, which is not what the Constitution allowed."

Kaine has twice tried to pass war powers resolutions aimed at preventing the president from conducting strikes against Venezuela, earning support from two Republicans.

"That was before all of these assets have amassed around Venezuela, and before President Trump said that the airspace needs to be closed," Kaine said.

Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social Saturday that Venezuela's airspace should be considered "CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY." The post comes as the administration has increased pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, with signs that military action, including possible ground action, could be imminent.

Kaine said if there's ground action, the numbers in the Senate would change. And he noted that he would move "immediately" on a war powers resolution "should there be military action."

"The circumstances have changed in the months since we had that vote," Kaine said. "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."

Rep. Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee and previously led the House Intelligence Committee, also appeared on "Face the Nation" Sunday. He said "Congress does not have information" that the reported follow-on strike occurred.

"If that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act," Turner added.

Andy McCarthy Torpedoes Pete Hegseth’s Response to Blockbuster WaPo Report in Scathing Column: If True, It’s ‘At Best, a War Crime’

Joe DePaolo
Sun, November 30, 2025 

MEDIATE


Screenshot

Conservative legal commentator Andy McCarthy torpedoed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s response to the blockbuster report which stated the secretary ordered the killing of everyone on board a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean in September.

In a scathing National Review column published late Saturday, McCarthy — who also serves as a Fox News contributor — made clear that he believes the events, as laid out in the Washington Post report, are patently illegal.

“If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law,” McCarthy wrote. “I say ‘at best’ because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict.”

The Post reported that a second strike was ordered to take out two survivors who were clinging for life to the damaged ship. McCarthy said that giving the administration the benefit of the doubt wouldn’t change his view of that reported second strike.

“Even if you buy the untenable claim that they are combatants, it is a war crime to intentionally kill combatants who have been rendered unable to fight,” McCarthy wrote. “It is not permitted, under the laws and customs of honorable warfare, to order that no quarter be given — to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight.”

Hegseth, on X Friday, delivered a lengthy rebuttal to the Post report. But McCarthy notes that Hegseth “doesn’t actually rebut any assertion in the report.” McCarthy highlighted Hegseth saying, “As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes. The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people.”

“Neither Hegseth’s statement nor the explanation attributed to [operation commander Admiral Frank M. ‘Mitch’] Bradley… makes legal sense,” McCarthy wrote.

He added, “This is a very serious matter. The administration’s defense can’t be that ‘we killed them because our plan is to use lethal force.'”

GOP senators to join Democrats in investigating Pete Hegseth ‘kill everybody’ allegations

Mike Bedigan

Sat, November 29, 2025 

GOP senators to join Democrats in investigating Pete Hegseth ‘kill everybody’ allegations
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways

Senators from both sides of the political aisle will join forces to investigate allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered there to be no survivors in U.S. airstrikes on alleged drug-running boats.

GOP Senator Roger Wicker, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Democratic Senator Jack Reed announced the decision in a joint statement Saturday.

"The Committee is aware of recent news reports and the Department of Defense’s initial response — regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” the statement read.

“The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

It comes following a report from The Washington Post, which alleged that Hegseth had ordered military personnel to “kill everybody” on board a vessel in the Caribbean, suspected of carrying drugs, on September 2.

A first missile strike left two survivors, but a Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions to “kill everybody,” according to the Post, which cited officials with direct knowledge of the operation.

The two men were then “blown apart in the water,” according to the report.

Wicker and Reed’s statement is a significant development following weeks and now months of intense scrutiny around the administration’s siege of what it describes as “narco-terrorists.”

The attack on September 2 was the first of more than a dozen attacks on alleged drug-running boats that have killed more than 80 people over the last three months.

International investigators and members of Congress have since questioned the legality of the operations, alleging that the Trump administration’s deadly campaign amounts to extrajudicial killings. Other experts, speaking to The Independent, have labeled the actions as outright murder and a war crime.

News of the investigation comes following a report from The Washington Post which alleged that Hegseth had ordered military personnel to ‘kill everybody’ on board a vessel in the Caribbean, suspected of carrying drugs, on September 2 (US Secretary of Defense Pete Heg)More

The Independent has contacted the Department of War for comment on news of the Senate investigation.

Hegseth took to social media Friday to blast The Post’s report as “more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting” aimed at discrediting the administration's work and insisted that the operations were lawful.

“As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes,’” he wrote in the lengthy post.

The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”

He added: “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

Pete Hegseth lashes out at 'kill them all' report on boat strikes

Phillip M. Bailey,

 USA TODAY
Sat, November 29, 2025 

U.S Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is lashing out at a report that he ordered military officials to "kill them all" during one of the Trump administration's strikes in the Caribbean aimed a boat allegedly carrying drug cargo.

"As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland," Hegseth, 45, said in a Nov. 28 post on X.

The defense secretary was responding to a Washington Post story citing two anonymous sources that claimed he ordered troops to leave no survivors after a missile struck the vessel, which was traveling off the Trinidad coast, as two individuals were clinging to the smoldering wreckage.

Since September, the Trump administration has attacked at least 21 boats traversing international waters, killing 83 people. Trump and other officials defend the boat strikes as an attempt to crackdown on illegal narcotics flooding into the U.S., but lawmakers from both parties have criticized the administration for providing no intelligence briefings or other evidence about what the vessels are carrying.

"At this point, I would call them extrajudicial killings," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said during an Oct. 26 appearance on Fox News Sunday. "This is akin to what China does, what Iran does with drug dealers − they summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public. So it's wrong."



Sept. 15, 2025: The U.S. military killed three people in a strike on a boat allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean Sea.

Sept. 15, 2025: The U.S. military killed three people in a strike on a boat allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean Sea.

Oct. 24, 2025: The U.S. military killed six people in a strike on a boat in the Caribbean, alleged to be carrying narcotics, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Oct. 24.


US military conducts deadly boat strikes against alleged drug traffickers
1 of 12
Sept. 15, 2025: The U.S. military killed three people in a strike on a boat allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean Sea.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who shared the story about Hegseth's alleged order, raised similar concerns about the constitutionality of the strikes in an Nov. 28 post on X.

"If you want to know why Hegseth is panicking about reminders that there is accountably for giving or carrying out illegal orders, it’s likely because he knows he has given illegal orders to murder people," Murphy said.

The report comes amid a U.S. military buildup near Venezuela, which Trump has argued is necessary to combat gangs, such as Tren de Aragua, and others like Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel. A Venezuelan criminal organization known as Cartel de los Soles, for example, was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. on Nov. 24.

Hegseth defends ditching 'kid gloves approach' to drug war

Pete Hegseth, secretary of the Department of War ‒ formally known as the Department of Defense ‒ at the White House in Washington, DC, on Nov. 18, 2025.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are at the center of humanitarian rules and international standards, any wounded or sick combatants are to be retrieved and receive care by either side in a conflict.

But in his Nov. 28 post slamming the report, Hegseth argued that each "trafficker we kill is affiliated" with a terrorist group and the current U.S. operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law.

"The Biden administration preferred the kid gloves approach, allowing millions of people — including dangerous cartels and unvetted Afghans — to flood our communities with drugs and violence," he said.

"The Trump administration has sealed the border and gone on offense against narco-terrorists. Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them."

Legal scholars and others, however, continue to raise questions about the legality of the boat strikes and spokespersons for the White House, Justice Department and the Pentagon have not responded to USA TODAY requests for comment on what laws the administration is using to justify the attacks.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an Nov. 28 statement that his powerful panel has directed inquiries to the defense department about the strikes, "and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances."

Wicker, along with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking Democrat on the committee, have sent Hegseth multiple requests for basic information including legal justifications and intelligence underpinning individual strikes.

Several legal experts have spoken out, too, saying Trump and his administration's rationale marks an unprecedented step by U.S. using the military, rather than law enforcement, to enforce the drug war with congressional approval.

During Trump's first term he expressed admiration for foreign leaders who instituted the death penalty for drug traffickers, including former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte who is facing crimes against humanity charges at the International Criminal Court for war on drugs policies.

Trump said last month he saw no reason to involve Congress when asked about the boat strikes, suggesting lawmakers and voters wouldn't mind such actions in the name of stopping illegal narcotics.

"I don’t think we’re necessarily going to ask for a declaration of war," Trump said. "I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. We’re going to kill them. They’re going to be, like, dead."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Hegseth slams 'kill them all' report on Caribbean boat strikes

Survivors on ‘narco boat’ targeted by Trump order were blown apart after Hegseth verbal command to ‘kill everybody’: Report

Alex Woodward
Fri, November 28, 2025

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly gave a verbal order to leave no survivors behind as Donald Trump’s administration launched the first of more than a dozen attacks on alleged drug-running boats that have killed more than 80 people over the last three months.

On Septeried 11 people accused of trafficking drugs into the United States.
mber 2, U.S. military personnel fired a missile striking a vessel in the Caribbean that car
When two survivors emerged from the wreckage, a Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions to “kill everybody,” according to The Washington Post, citing officials with direct knowledge of the operation.

The two men were then “blown apart in the water,” according to the report.

News of Hegseth’s alleged command follows intense legal scrutiny from international investigators and members of Congress alleging that the Trump administration’s deadly campaign amounts to illegal extrajudicial killings, which law-of-war experts speaking to The Independent have labeled outright murder and a war crime.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly instructed military personnel to leave no survivors behind as the Trump administration launched a series of strikes targeting boats suspected to carrying drugs towards the United States (REUTERS)More

The Department of Defense “has no response to this post and declines to comment further,” a Pentagon spokesperson told The Independent Friday.

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told The Washington Post that the newspaper’s “entire narrative is completely false” and that “ongoing operations to dismantle narcoterrorism and to protect the Homeland from deadly drugs have been a resounding success.”

In a statement on Friday evening, Hegseth criticized what he called “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting” but he did not refute the claims.

“As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes,’” he wrote on X. “The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people.”

He claimed the airstrikes are compliant with “U.S. and international law” and under rules of armed conflict, “approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command,” he added.

In September, the Trump administration told Congress that the United States is formally engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels that the president has labeled “unlawful combatants.”

Administration officials have labeled cartels “nonstate armed groups” whose actions “constitute an armed attack against the United States” and are now engaged in a “noninternational armed conflict” — or war with a non-state actor.

In the weeks that followed, the Trump administration directed more than a dozen strikes that have killed more than 80 people on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean but have not publicly provided any evidence or legal justification for their deaths, according to lawmakers and civil rights groups.

A newly unveiled legal memo from the Department of Justice claims military personnel involved in the strikes won’t face criminal prosecution in the future, a defense that legal experts and national security scholars say has failed to prevent exposure to potential criminal liability.

The alleged traffickers pose no imminent threat to the United States and are not in what the administration has labeled an “armed conflict” with the country, according to officials and experts.

“The term for premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder,” said Brian Finucane, senior adviser with the International Crisis Group, a conflict policy nonprofit.

“And the Trump administration has not established that these strikes are taking place in an armed conflict nor that the targets would be lawful under the law of war,” he told The Independent this month.

Donald Trump shared video of a missile strike on September 2 that killed11 people on a boat that officials claim was carrying drugs headed toward the United States (White House)

While it’s not clear what instructions the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has provided the administration, the White House appears to be using that guidance as a “legal permission slip to commit acts that might otherwise be criminal,” according to Finucane.

Asked why he won’t seek permission from Congress for his military campaign taking aim at South American regimes he claims are fueling a drug epidemic in the United States, Trump has said his government is “just going to kill people” instead.


“I don’t think we're going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them,” Trump said during a White House roundtable with administration officials last month.

“They’re going to be, like, dead, OK,” he said.

Trump shared a 29-second drone footage of the first strike on September 2 in a post on his Truth Social account the following day, warning that that the attack also served as a “notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

The president said the 11 people on board were “terrorists” from the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the administration has labeled a foreign terrorist organization.

Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, the commander overseeing the operation from Fort Bragg in North Carolina, told personnel involved in the strike that survivors were legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo, according to people with knowledge of the command who spoke to The Washington Post.

Bradley allegedly ordered the second strike to fulfill Hegseth’s command to kill all onboard.

At the time of the attack, he led the Joint Special Operations Command, which operates under command of the U.S. Special Operations Command and typically is responsible for performing classified military operations. He was later promoted to lead the parent organization.

SEAL Team 6 — formally known as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, which handles complex and classified operations that may include higher-profile targets — reportedly performed intelligence collection to determine who was on the boat.

News of the so-called “double tap” strike was first reported by The Intercept within days after the attack.

Trump administration officials have posted drone-captured footage on social media chronicling more than a dozen attacks on alleged drug-carrying vessels that law-of-war experts say amount to illegal extrajudicial killings (US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth)More

Earlier this month, members of Congress last month received closed-door briefings on the attacks from administration officials, who were “unable to provide any credible explanation for its extrajudicial and unauthorized” attacks, according to Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The legal justifications are “dubious and meant to circumvent Congress’ constitutional power on matters of war and peace,” he said in a statement following the briefings.

Top Democrats on House committees overseeing national intelligence, armed forces and foreign affairs have also demanded a vote on a resolution to block the Trump administration from continuing the strikes.

“The Trump administration has not provided a credible rationale for its 21 unauthorized military strikes on vessels in the Western Hemisphere, which have resulted in the extrajudicial killings of dozens of individuals,” they said in a joint statement last week.

“Nor has this administration explained why it has deployed an invasion-level force of roughly 15,000 troops, a carrier strike group, and military aircraft for a mission it claims is about counter-narcotics,” they added. “This posture is wildly disproportionate to the stated objective and far more reminiscent of preparations for war.”


US military carried out second strike killing survivors on a suspected drug boat that had already been attacked, sources say

Natasha Bertrand, CNN
Sat, November 29, 2025 


This screengrab of a video posted to Donald Trump’s Truth Social account on September 2, 2025, shows what Trump described as a Tren de Aragua boat carrying drugs from Venezuela. - Donald Trump/Truth Social


The US military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on September 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.

While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.

The Republican-led Senate and House armed services committees said they plan to conduct “vigorous oversight” on the follow-up strike.

Before the operation, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the military to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear whether he knew there were survivors before the second strike, one of the sources said.

The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.

Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug-trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid questions about the legality of the US military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.

“I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. The House Foreign Affairs Committee member said she viewed in a sensitive compartmented information facility “some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”

People briefed on the “double-tap” strike said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

“They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and The Washington Post.

Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attends a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels on October 15, 2025. - Yves Herman/Reuters

The US military was aware there were survivors in the water following the first strike on September 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.

The US military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the September 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.

It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up like they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.

In a post announcing the September 2 strike on Truth Social, Trump said the US military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”

The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the US. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.

Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.

The top officials on the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee said late Friday their panel plans to conduct “vigorous oversight” on the follow-up strike.

“The Committee is aware of recent news reports – and the Department of Defense’s initial response – regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” the committee’s Republican chair, Sen. Roger Wicker, and top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed, said in a statement.

“The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances,” the statement read.

Reps. Mike Rogers and Adam Smith, the top Republican and top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, respectively, followed suit Saturday evening, saying they are “taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.”

Before the US military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the US Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.

But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.

That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: In at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the US before being struck. Survivors of the strike on September 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.

Senior US defense officials and US allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of US Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.

Lawyers specializing in international law within the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN the strikes do not appear lawful.

The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

This story has been updated with additional details.

CNN’s Veronica Stracqualursi contributed to this report.