Andy McCarthy: If the Report Is True, These Strikes Are 'At Best, a War Crime' — A Sharp Rebuke of Pete Hegseth

Conservative legal commentator Andy McCarthy sharply criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s public defense of recent U.S. maritime strikes, arguing that, if a recent investigative report is accurate, the actions could amount to war crimes.

McCarthy’s legal assessment

In a forceful National Review column, McCarthy — who also contributes to television news commentary — wrote that the reported strikes on a suspected drug-running vessel in the Caribbean last September raise serious legal and moral questions. He said that, "If this happened as described in the report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law."

"I say 'at best' because... 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."

Key legal concerns

McCarthy outlined several reasons the strikes would be unlawful if the report's account is accurate:

• They were carried out without congressional authorization.
• The vessel’s crew did not pose a clear military threat to the United States.
• Under federal law, narcotics trafficking is treated as criminal activity, not an act of war or terrorism that would justify lethal battlefield force.

He also focused on allegations that a second strike was ordered to target survivors clinging to the damaged ship. McCarthy stressed that even if those individuals were labeled combatants, it would violate the laws and customs of war to intentionally kill people who have been rendered unable to fight.

"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... It is not permitted... 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’s response and McCarthy’s critique

Secretary Hegseth published a lengthy rebuttal on the social platform X, emphasizing that the strikes were intended to be "lethal, kinetic strikes" aimed at stopping deadly drug shipments, destroying narco-boats, and eliminating what he described as "narco-terrorists." McCarthy countered that Hegseth’s rhetoric does not address the specific factual assertions about the strikes and does not provide a legal basis for intentionally targeting people who are incapacitated or surrendering.

McCarthy also noted that language about a general policy of using lethal force cannot substitute for a lawful justification under domestic or international law.

What’s at stake

McCarthy called the matter "very serious," saying it raises potential violations of both U.S. statutory law and the laws of armed conflict. He argued the administration must provide clearer, legally grounded explanations and that the allegations — if true — warrant independent review.

Names mentioned in this debate include Secretary Pete Hegseth and Admiral Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley, who has been cited as an operational commander connected to the actions under scrutiny.

Note: The report that prompted these responses is the subject of ongoing public and legal scrutiny. McCarthy’s column urges accountability and careful legal analysis rather than relying on policy statements alone.