CRBC News
Politics
Conflict
Security
Economy
Science
Technology
Environment
Health
Culture
Society
Lifestyle
Conflict

Explained: Alleged War Crime in Trump Administration’s Anti‑Drug Boat Strikes

02:20 PM, 12/05/2025
Explained: Alleged War Crime in Trump Administration’s Anti‑Drug Boat Strikes

What to know: A September 2 U.S. strike on an alleged "drug boat" in the Caribbean killed 11 people; a follow‑on attack then killed two survivors. Reporting says Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told officials to "kill everybody," and that the Pentagon knew survivors remained before the second strike. Legal experts say deliberately killing disabled people at sea would be a war crime, and many reject the administration's legal rationale for the strikes. Congress has opened bipartisan oversight after viewing video and taking testimony.

What Happened

The Trump administration has come under renewed scrutiny after U.S. forces struck vessels described as "drug boats" in the Caribbean and Pacific beginning in early September. Reporting indicates these operations have killed at least 83 people. Attention has focused on a September 2 strike in the Caribbean after The Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told officials to "kill everybody" on the targeted boat.

Reported Facts

  • The September 2 strike reportedly killed 11 people aboard a small boat in the Caribbean.
  • The U.S. fired four missiles during that operation, including a follow‑on attack that killed two survivors.
  • According to reporting, the Pentagon was aware there were survivors after the first strike but proceeded with the second attack.

Legal Issues

Under international humanitarian law, deliberately killing persons who are hors de combat (helpless or unable to fight), especially after their vessel has been disabled, would constitute a war crime. The Pentagon's own law‑of‑war manual similarly prohibits the intentional targeting of defenseless survivors. Legal scholars have also questioned whether the administration has any lawful basis to conduct these strikes at all, criticizing the claim that the U.S. is engaged in a "noninternational armed conflict" with drug cartels as legally unfounded.

Who Ordered the Follow‑On Strike?

The central factual dispute concerns who authorized the follow‑on attack on September 2. Hegseth has stated he was not present when the order was given and has attributed the decision to Adm. Frank Bradley. Investigations and congressional oversight are attempting to clarify the chain of command and decision‑making that led to the second strike.

Oversight and Wider Implications

Congress has opened bipartisan oversight into the September 2 incident. Lawmakers have viewed video of the attack and heard testimony from military officials; Rep. Jim Himes (D) called the footage "one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service." The inquiry raises broader questions about executive war powers, the legal framework used to justify cross‑border or maritime strikes, and civilian oversight of lethal operations.

Note: Reporting on the incident is ongoing. Key facts—such as who gave the order for the follow‑on strike and the full legal justification used by the administration—remain under investigation.

As the investigation proceeds, the episode will likely shape debate over the limits of U.S. military authority, the application of international humanitarian law to counter‑narcotics operations, and accountability for potential violations.

Similar Articles

Trending