The U.S. military’s approach to combating drug trafficking has drawn significant criticism following reports that Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, ordered military forces to “kill everybody” during operations against suspected drug traffickers. A recent article in the Washington Post detailed how Hegseth’s orders led to a military strike in the Caribbean, resulting in the deaths of approximately 80 individuals thus far.
The directive came amid a broader campaign aimed at dismantling drug trafficking operations in the Caribbean and Pacific. The first strike, targeting a vessel off the coast of Trinidad, reportedly left two survivors. According to the Post, the commander of the operation, following Hegseth’s orders, initiated a second strike to eliminate these survivors. This has raised serious legal and ethical questions regarding the conduct of military actions against non-combatants.
The administration claims that these actions are justified under the premise that drug traffickers, labeled as “narco-terrorists,” are financing operations against the United States and its allies. Critics, including international law experts, argue that the individuals aboard these vessels do not pose an immediate threat to American citizens and should instead be apprehended rather than executed. Matthew Petti, writing for Reason, noted that the administration’s legal rationale could potentially sanction a broad range of military actions against anyone deemed a target.
In November, a resolution requiring congressional authorization for military action against Venezuela narrowly failed in the U.S. Senate, with a vote of 49-51. Despite ongoing debates about the legality of these strikes, the military continues to execute operations against suspected drug smugglers.
The second strike on the boat survivors has been condemned as a violation of international law, with former military lawyer Todd Huntley stating, “An order to kill boat occupants no longer able to fight would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime.” This echoes a growing concern about the implications of the administration’s aggressive anti-drug campaign.
Over the weekend, the armed services committees in both the House and Senate announced investigations into the first strike. President Donald Trump characterized the initial operation as “very lethal” but expressed reservations about the second strike.
Responding to the Washington Post article, Hegseth accused the publication of engaging in “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting,” while asserting that current military operations comply with both U.S. and international law. His tweets emphasized the effectiveness of the strikes in combating threats to the homeland.
The ongoing military actions against drug trafficking are set against a backdrop of heightened tensions with Venezuela. Recent communications between Trump and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro have not alleviated these tensions, as the U.S. moves closer to a potential military confrontation. Reports indicate that during a recent phone call, Maduro was informed he could avoid U.S. intervention by relinquishing control of the country, a proposal he rejected.
In domestic news, Sarah Beckstrom, a member of the West Virginia National Guard, tragically lost her life during a shooting incident in Washington, D.C. A second guardsman, Andrew Wolfe, remains hospitalized following the attack. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is an Afghan national who had previously been part of a CIA-organized counterterrorism unit.
As investigations unfold and debates regarding military legality intensify, the implications of the U.S. administration’s anti-drug campaign continue to evoke strong reactions both domestically and internationally. The evolving situation raises critical questions about the administration’s methods and the broader impacts of its military strategies.
