The Washington Post ran with an anonymously-sourced hit piece claiming that War Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered Seal Team 6, when executing a strike against narco-terrorists in the Caribbean, to “kill them all” — and legacy media outlets fell all over themselves platforming guests who would question whether or not such an order, if given, was legal.
For those who don’t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week’s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.
Once the story began circulating on Saturday, Hegseth addressed it directly, saying, “As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”
“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,” Hegseth continued. “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”
The focus across media outlets was on what happened after the initial missile strike: operators watched a live feed that showed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of the boat. Then, according to The Washington Post’s report, a second strike was carried out in order to comply with the directive to “kill them all” — and the legality of that second strike in particular was where they focused the majority of the attention.
On ABC’s “This Week,” host Jonathan Karl brought in global affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz to discuss the issue, and she questioned whether the second strike, reportedly carried out when the two survivors were not known to be an “imminent threat” might stand in violation of the “rules of war.”
“Did those two men clinging to the side of the boat pose an imminent threat?” she asked, and she wondered aloud whether the order to strike a second time had been given with the knowledge that survivors were hanging on for dear life, and whether the lawyers had been consulted about the legality of such a strike.
“Did those two men clinging to the side of the boat pose an imminent threat?”@MarthaRaddatz weighs in on the Washington Post reporting of a military strike that allegedly targeted two survivors in the Caribbean. https://t.co/qh5zs8hdWr pic.twitter.com/alnukF1hlq
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) November 30, 2025
Karl then set up Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) with the framing of the second strike as a “war crime.” Van Hollen agreed that it would certainly be a “war crime,” but only if one accepted the Trump administration’s assertion that the United States was, in fact, at war with the cartels.
“But it could be worse than that. If that theory is wrong, then it’s plain murder,” he said. “But even if you accept their legal theory, then it is a war crime.”
“I do believe that the Secretary of Defense should be held accountable for giving those kind of orders.”
Sen. Van Hollen comments on the Washington Post reporting of a military strike that allegedly targeted two survivors in the Caribbean. https://t.co/CeUj71b7jA pic.twitter.com/eqaL76Vd4o
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) November 30, 2025
Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) took the same position as Raddatz, arguing that he could not see how two men hanging onto wreckage in the water amounted to an “imminent threat.”
“It’s hard to believe that two people on a raft trying to survive would pose an imminent threat,” he said, but argued that he didn’t believe Hegseth would give an order to kill survivors after an initial strike.
Rep. Don Bacon on the Washington Post reporting of a military strike that allegedly targeted two survivors in the Caribbean: “It’s hard to believe that two people on a raft trying to survive would pose an imminent threat.” https://t.co/Nh3a5IomlB pic.twitter.com/NmxgtniEnp
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) November 30, 2025
On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) argued that he was unsure of the legality of any of the strikes against narco-terrorists. “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 allows,” he said.
He also argued that a second strike “rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) says the “shoddy” legal rationale the Trump administration provided Congress for its military strikes on alleged drug boats “was not at all persuasive that these are legal actions.”
“It’s time for Congress to rein in a president who is deciding to wage war… pic.twitter.com/KrMKfTNhYb
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) November 30, 2025
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) claimed that he would have disregarded the order to carry out the second strike.
“I’m a guy who — I have sunk two ships … during the first Gulf War,” Kelly said. “I never in that situation questioned whether those strikes were legal. We were given an order to do this, it was a time of war.”
Kelly went on to say that he, like Kaine, questioned the legality of the strikes from the start.
BASH: You mentioned that you were a captain in the Navy. If you received that order, would you have carried it out?
KELLY: No. No. pic.twitter.com/CngXyLvL1f— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) November 30, 2025
A second strike on top of that — particularly when the men in the water supposedly posed no immediate threat — would rise to the level of a “war crime,” Kelly said.
Sen. Mark Kelly: U.S. military carrying out second strike on a suspected drug vessel killing unarmed survivors “seems to” constitute a war crime. pic.twitter.com/eTJl19bVxm
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) November 30, 2025
On Fox News’ “Big Weekend Show,” however, Marine Corps veteran Joey Jones pushed back and argued that an “imminent threat” does not always have to come in the form of guns pointed at American citizens.
🚨 Joey Jones just ended the left with one quote:
“Spare me the tears over terrorists when you don’t cry over Americans who’ve died from them. Spare me the tears over terrorists when you didn’t have anything to say when President Obama droned American citizens.”
🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/6ISsgZkWzD
— Gina Milan (@ginamilan_) November 29, 2025
Jones noted that if the survivors were able to radio others in their drug trafficking network, that could be just as grave a threat — and could also quickly result in men with guns showing up to defend them.
Continue reading this exclusive article and join the conversation, plus watch free videos on DW+
Already a member?
.png)
.png)
