U.S. 'Kill Everybody' Order Sparks War-Crime Accusations off Venezuela: Pentagon Investigation and Legal Analysis

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on December 3, 2025.

A Washington Post investigation has ignited a firestorm in the United States and abroad after it alleged that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a blunt command – “kill everybody” – during a counter‑narcotics operation off Venezuela’s coast. The claim, if true, would mark a stark departure from long‑standing U.S. rules of engagement and could constitute a war crime under international law. As the episode unfolds, bipartisan lawmakers, senior military officials, and foreign allies are demanding answers, while the strategic calculus behind targeting drug‑running vessels remains murky. The stakes are high: the credibility of America’s military doctrine, the integrity of its legal commitments, and the trust of long‑standing partners hang in the balance.

Key Takeaways

The alleged second missile targeted survivors of the first strike, a tactic prohibited under the Geneva and Hague Conventions and considered a war crime by former U.S. JAG lawyers.
The incident has triggered bipartisan congressional inquiries, with Senators Mark Kelly, Rand Paul, and Thom Tillis demanding accountability and a full investigation.
President Trump and Hegseth have denied wrongdoing, while the White House initially denied a double‑tap before later acknowledging Admiral Frank Bradley’s role in authorizing the second strike.
Allies—including the UK, NATO members, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Colombia—have expressed growing distrust of U.S. counter‑narcotics operations, fearing erosion of global credibility.
Legal experts warn that if proven, Hegseth could face war‑crime charges, though U.S. law and the 2002 Service‑Members’ Protection Act make prosecution unlikely without a presidential pardon.
The United Nations human‑rights chief has called for a thorough investigation, highlighting concerns over extrajudicial killings and potential violations of international humanitarian law.

Pentagon Orders and the ‘Kill Everybody’ Directive: Unpacking Hegseth’s Alleged Command

According to the Washington Post’s reporting, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly uttered the two‑word order “kill everybody” in early September, shortly after the United States launched its first airstrike against a suspected narco‑trafficking boat in the Caribbean. The source of the claim is described as “well‑placed insiders within the Pentagon,” suggesting the directive came from the highest civilian authority in the Department of Defense. The reported command was said to be relayed verbally to senior military officials, including Admiral Frank Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, who subsequently oversaw the execution of a second strike. Hegseth later defended the decision, stating that the admiral “has my 100% support” and that the follow‑up action was “the right call.” The Pentagon’s public spokesperson, Sean Parnell, dismissed the narrative as “completely false,” emphasizing that the strikes were intended to dismantle “narcoterrorism” and protect the homeland. The contrast between the alleged verbal order and the official denials underscores a tension within the chain of command that has become central to the emerging controversy.

The Dual Airstrikes off Venezuela: Timeline, Targets, and the Controversial Second Missile

The operation began with a precision strike on a fast motorboat carrying eleven individuals. Intelligence assessments cited by the Post linked the occupants to the criminal gang Tren de Aragua, though no conclusive evidence of narcotrafficking was publicly presented. After the first missile hit, at least two survivors were observed clinging to the wreckage, attempting to stay afloat. Within hours, a second missile was launched, killing the two men still in the water. The follow‑up strike was reportedly carried out by Navy SEAL Team 6, the same unit that executed the raid on Osama bin Laden. Sources in the report claim that Admiral Bradley justified the second attack by arguing the survivors could “call other traffickers to come get them and their cargo.” The sequence of a lethal first strike followed by a deliberate targeting of incapacitated survivors fits the definition of a “double‑tap,” a tactic that has drawn intense scrutiny in other conflict zones.

Legal Framework: War‑Crime Assessment of a Double‑Tap in Counter‑Narcotics

International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention, explicitly prohibits the targeting of combatants who are no longer capable of posing a threat. A former working group of U.S. Judge Advocate General (JAG) lawyers unanimously concluded that both the issuance and execution of the alleged orders would constitute war crimes, murder, or both. Their analysis hinges on whether the United States is engaged in a “non‑international armed conflict.” If it is, the killing of survivors after they have been rendered harmless is illegal under the law of armed conflict. If no armed conflict exists, the act would be classified as outright murder. The principle of “no‑quarter” – the refusal to grant mercy to defeated opponents – is expressly forbidden. The JAG assessment notes that targeting individuals who are already incapacitated violates these norms, regardless of the justification offered, such as preventing them from alerting other traffickers. The legal debate therefore centers on the classification of the operation and the applicability of combatant status to alleged narco‑terrorists.

Political Fallout in Washington: Bipartisan Calls for Investigation and Accountability

The allegations have prompted an unusually swift bipartisan response. Senators Mark Kelly, a retired naval aviator, faced pressure from the White House after warning troops that “our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders.” In retaliation, the administration threatened to recall Kelly for a possible court‑martial, though legal experts doubt the feasibility of such prosecution. On the legislative side, the top Republican and Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee—Mike Rogers and Adam Smith—announced a joint inquiry, while the Senate pledged a parallel investigation. Republican senators, including Rand Paul and Thom Tillis, publicly questioned Hegseth’s competence and honesty, with Tillis stating that the alleged actions “violate ethical, moral and legal code.” Democratic lawmakers have issued forceful condemnations, and the United Nations’ human‑rights chief has called for a thorough probe into possible extrajudicial killings. The White House’s narrative has shifted over the days following the report. Initially, Secretary Hegseth dismissed the Post’s story as “fake news,” but later statements from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that Hegseth “authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct those kinetic strikes.” President Trump, when asked, suggested he was unaware of the second attack and expressed that he “wouldn’t have wanted that.” The evolving official stance reflects the mounting pressure to provide accountability.

Strategic Motives and Risks: Why the U.S. Targets Narco‑Boats and What Escalation Could Mean

The United States frames the Caribbean strikes as part of a broader campaign against narcoterrorism, asserting that the vessels targeted are linked to drug‑smuggling networks that threaten American communities. The Pentagon’s public messaging emphasizes that each trafficker killed is “affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.” However, the Post’s investigation notes that the boat carried eleven people—a number more typical of migrant vessels than a pure drug‑running craft—raising questions about the evidentiary basis for the attacks. Beyond the immediate tactical goal, the operation sits within a larger geopolitical context. Trust in the United States has already been eroding among traditional allies: the United Kingdom has curtailed intelligence sharing, NATO members have expressed horror at broader policy rollbacks, and Latin American partners such as Colombia have openly opposed recent decisions. A perceived willingness to conduct double‑tap strikes could further damage these relationships, potentially prompting allies to reassess cooperation on security matters. The risk of escalation also looms if Venezuelan forces or allied regional actors interpret the strikes as a direct challenge, potentially drawing the United States into a wider confrontation in the Caribbean. If the investigations confirm the allegations, the United States could face not only domestic legal scrutiny but also international diplomatic repercussions. The precedent set by the 1944 Peleus trial—where Nazi officers were executed for ordering survivors to be shot—illustrates the gravity of such accusations, even though contemporary U.S. policy, such as the American Service‑Members’ Protection Act, complicates any external prosecution. The outcome of this episode will likely shape future rules of engagement for counter‑narcotics operations and determine whether the United States can reconcile its security objectives with its obligations under international law.

Related Coverage

FAQ

What evidence supports the claim that Pete Hegseth said "kill everybody" during the Venezuela operation?

The Washington Post investigation cites "well‑placed insiders within the Pentagon" who reported that Hegseth verbally ordered a second missile strike after the first hit a boat carrying eleven people. The Post’s report also references internal intelligence assessments linking the occupants to the Tren de Aragua gang, and notes that survivors were still afloat when the second strike was launched, indicating a deliberate "kill everybody" order.

How does a double‑tap strike violate international law, and what are the legal consequences?

A double‑tap strike—firing a second missile at survivors of an initial attack—breaches the Geneva and Hague Conventions, which prohibit targeting combatants who are no longer a threat. Former U.S. JAG lawyers unanimously ruled that such orders constitute war crimes, murder, or both, and that anyone issuing or following them could be prosecuted under international humanitarian law.

Who is Admiral Frank Bradley and what role did he play in the alleged second strike?

Admiral Frank Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, is alleged to have authorized the second missile strike. The Washington Post report states that Bradley viewed the survivors as legitimate targets, believing they could call other traffickers to retrieve them. Hegseth later praised Bradley as a "hero" and affirmed his support for the decision.

What actions are lawmakers taking in response to the allegations against Hegseth?

Senators Mark Kelly, Rand Paul, and Thom Tillis, along with House Armed Services Committee leaders Mike Rogers and Adam Smith, have announced bipartisan investigations into the incident. They are calling for congressional hearings, a full inquiry into the chain of command, and potential accountability for Hegseth and other officials involved.

How have U.S. allies reacted to the alleged war crimes off Venezuela?

The United Kingdom, NATO members, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Colombia have all expressed growing distrust of U.S. counter‑narcotics operations. The allegations have eroded global confidence in Washington’s adherence to international law, prompting allies to question the legitimacy of U.S. military actions off Venezuela.

What is the potential legal outcome for Pete Hegseth if the allegations are proven true?

If the allegations are substantiated, Hegseth could face war‑crime charges under international law, with precedent suggesting severe penalties, including death. However, U.S. law and the 2002 Service‑Members’ Protection Act make prosecution unlikely without a presidential pardon, leaving the outcome uncertain.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →