Admiral Denies 'Kill Them All' Order — Hegseth Gets Temporary Political Reprieve

Admiral Says No "Kill Them All" Directive; Controversy Remains

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth won a political breathing space after Adm. Frank Bradley told lawmakers in a closed-door briefing that he did not receive a directive to "kill them all" or to show "no quarter" before a Sept. 2 U.S. strike on a boat in the Caribbean. Bradley's account undercuts a Nov. 28 Washington Post report that attributed a spoken instruction to Hegseth and said a second strike was carried out to comply with such an order.

What Happened

The September operation included an initial strike on a vessel in which two people survived and clung to wreckage. A subsequent strike killed those survivors, prompting critics to say the action raised serious legal and moral questions — including allegations that the targeting of apparently incapacitated people could amount to a war crime.

Lawmakers React

Bradley's briefing produced bipartisan concern about the strikes but also agreement from several lawmakers that the admiral said no explicit, "kill them all" order was issued.

"I asked him very explicitly whether that order had been issued, and he said absolutely not," Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) told NPR's Morning Edition.

Democratic senators including Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Chris Van Hollen (Md.) have publicly questioned whether the second strike violated the laws of armed conflict. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he was "deeply disturbed" by footage shown to lawmakers and called for further investigation.

Republican reaction has been mixed. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been an outspoken critic, demanding that Hegseth testify under oath and that the unedited video of the strike be released to the public. Other GOP senators, including Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), have been more cautious, saying they will reserve judgment until they view the footage or receive more information.

Wider Legal And Institutional Questions

The controversy extends beyond a single operation. Officials acknowledge more than 20 U.S. attacks on vessels in which over 80 people have died, raising unresolved questions about the legal basis for the strikes. The administration has argued that the United States is in an armed conflict with drug trafficking networks — a position many legal experts consider debatable and central to the strikes' legal justification.

Lawmakers have demanded the public release of a classified Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that reportedly explains the administration's legal rationale. Calls for additional transparency include requests for unredacted video and sworn testimony from Hegseth.

Related Concerns About Hegseth's Conduct

Separately, a Pentagon inspector general report found Hegseth violated policy and risked troop safety by discussing a planned strike on Houthi targets via the Signal app on his personal cellphone. The Wall Street Journal also reported that Hegseth pushed out Adm. Alvin Holsey, who had expressed initial concerns about the legality of lethal strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.

Outlook

Bradley's statement gives Hegseth immediate political relief, but it does not resolve the broader legal, moral and oversight questions. Lawmakers from both parties continue to press for documents, footage and testimony; new disclosures could renew or amplify pressure on the secretary and on the administration's policy toward maritime strikes.

Note: This article is based on reporting and closed-door briefings described by multiple lawmakers and media outlets. The facts in this piece reflect those public and reported accounts.