‘No Survivors’ Order? Hegseth Faces Bipartisan Fury Over Caribbean Strike

Paul Riverbank, 12/1/2025US strike in Caribbean sparks bipartisan outrage, war crimes scrutiny, and questions about moral authority.

The spark? In September, U.S. forces launched a strike against a boat suspected of smuggling drugs. Early reports, though sparse on specifics, were disturbing enough: after the initial attack, survivors were reportedly left floating. Then, according to a Washington Post investigation, someone high up—the Defense Secretary himself, Pete Hegseth, if the leaks are to be believed—ordered a second round. Not at another vessel, but at the survivors, with Hegseth allegedly commenting that there should be “no survivors.”

That phrase ricocheted through cable news. Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat who made his mark as both an astronaut and a Navy captain, didn’t mince words. On CNN, he called out what he saw as a massive breach: “We are not Russia, or Iraq. We don’t discard professional standards.” He flatly doubted Hegseth’s fitness and demanded an inspector general investigate—though with a side note that trust had already worn thin.

Senator Tim Kaine sounded just as grim. On a Sunday morning news slot, he reminded viewers of the Geneva Conventions’ stern warnings against targeting the wounded and defenseless. “If those accounts are on target, we’re not talking about policy mistakes. These would be war crimes.” The implication: this wasn’t politics as usual, and party affiliation wasn’t much of a shield.

It set off a chain reaction on Capitol Hill. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees almost tripped over one another to promise public hearings and on-the-record statements. Their aim, as quickly became clear, was to reconstruct the chain of command from moment to moment, pore over every order relayed, and, ultimately, see who—if anyone—tried to pull the brakes.

One wrinkle: Hegseth, for his part, denied the reported remarks in the strongest possible language. “Inflammatory, derogatory, and fabricated,” he declared. He insisted everything about the strike was above board under U.S. and international law. Process and procedure, he said, had been followed to the letter. Yet skepticism is hard to shake—especially among former military lawyers, several of whom have said that, if true, such conduct would clear a legal red line.

The issue, beneath all the noise, comes back to a core dilemma: how far can the U.S. go in defending its interests without losing the moral authority it relies on in the global community? Members of Congress are pressing for more than just post-action reviews. They demand clarity about who was targeted—were those on board truly drug traffickers, or just in the wrong place? Why was lethal force the answer, rather than capture or interdiction? And, crucially, what legal rationale supports a strike at survivors, particularly when the law of war is so explicit?

President Trump, meanwhile, has kept up a steady drumbeat of his own. On social media, he called for Venezuela’s airspace to be “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY”—implying the U.S. might soon expand its military campaign in the region. Senator Kaine ventured that if the administration goes that route and boots hit the ground, the tally in the Senate “would change”—a veiled warning that Congress may move decisively to check executive power if the showdown escalates.

This isn’t mere Democratic grandstanding. Republican Rep. Mike Turner, who sits on Armed Services, allowed that if the second strike happened as described, it “would be very serious, and...an illegal act.” So far, Congress seems determined to root out the facts—loud voices from both sides suggesting a rare moment of unity.

For Hegseth, the pressure is ramping up. Senator Kelly went so far as to argue that the secretary’s earlier missteps—“Signal-gate,” the carelessness in digital communications—should have been enough for removal. “And now this,” he said, intimating that each incident isn’t just a fluke but fits a larger pattern.

Since September, more than two dozen similar strikes have taken place on suspected drug-running boats. Lawmakers are signaling that every last one will get a close look: not just at physical evidence, but at the logic and legality behind the decisions.

There’s still a bigger question that echoes through every committee room and makes headlines abroad. Can the United States still claim the moral high ground if it bends—or breaks—its own code, not to mention international law? As public hearings get underway, that’s the question Congress, the Defense Department, and indeed the entire country will have to confront. However it’s answered, the ramifications likely won’t stay confined to Washington.

Washington’s always turbulent, but the last few weeks brought an unusual sense of unease—and not just across the usual ideological fault lines. A military action in Caribbean waters, aimed at curbing drug trafficking, has kicked off a wave of controversy with legal and moral tides swirling in unexpected directions.The spark? In September, U.S. forces launched a strike against a boat suspected of smuggling drugs. Early reports, though sparse on specifics, were disturbing enough: after the initial attack, survivors were reportedly left floating. Then, according to a Washington Post investigation, someone high up—the Defense Secretary himself, Pete Hegseth, if the leaks are to be believed—ordered a second round. Not at another vessel, but at the survivors, with Hegseth allegedly commenting that there should be “no survivors.”That phrase ricocheted through cable news. Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat who made his mark as both an astronaut and a Navy captain, didn’t mince words. On CNN, he called out what he saw as a massive breach: “We are not Russia, or Iraq. We don’t discard professional standards.” He flatly doubted Hegseth’s fitness and demanded an inspector general investigate—though with a side note that trust had already worn thin.Senator Tim Kaine sounded just as grim. On a Sunday morning news slot, he reminded viewers of the Geneva Conventions’ stern warnings against targeting the wounded and defenseless. “If those accounts are on target, we’re not talking about policy mistakes. These would be war crimes.” The implication: this wasn’t politics as usual, and party affiliation wasn’t much of a shield.It set off a chain reaction on Capitol Hill. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees almost tripped over one another to promise public hearings and on-the-record statements. Their aim, as quickly became clear, was to reconstruct the chain of command from moment to moment, pore over every order relayed, and, ultimately, see who—if anyone—tried to pull the brakes.One wrinkle: Hegseth, for his part, denied the reported remarks in the strongest possible language. “Inflammatory, derogatory, and fabricated,” he declared. He insisted everything about the strike was above board under U.S. and international law. Process and procedure, he said, had been followed to the letter. Yet skepticism is hard to shake—especially among former military lawyers, several of whom have said that, if true, such conduct would clear a legal red line.The issue, beneath all the noise, comes back to a core dilemma: how far can the U.S. go in defending its interests without losing the moral authority it relies on in the global community? Members of Congress are pressing for more than just post-action reviews. They demand clarity about who was targeted—were those on board truly drug traffickers, or just in the wrong place? Why was lethal force the answer, rather than capture or interdiction? And, crucially, what legal rationale supports a strike at survivors, particularly when the law of war is so explicit?President Trump, meanwhile, has kept up a steady drumbeat of his own. On social media, he called for Venezuela’s airspace to be “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY”—implying the U.S. might soon expand its military campaign in the region. Senator Kaine ventured that if the administration goes that route and boots hit the ground, the tally in the Senate “would change”—a veiled warning that Congress may move decisively to check executive power if the showdown escalates.This isn’t mere Democratic grandstanding. Republican Rep. Mike Turner, who sits on Armed Services, allowed that if the second strike happened as described, it “would be very serious, and...an illegal act.” So far, Congress seems determined to root out the facts—loud voices from both sides suggesting a rare moment of unity.For Hegseth, the pressure is ramping up. Senator Kelly went so far as to argue that the secretary’s earlier missteps—“Signal-gate,” the carelessness in digital communications—should have been enough for removal. “And now this,” he said, intimating that each incident isn’t just a fluke but fits a larger pattern.Since September, more than two dozen similar strikes have taken place on suspected drug-running boats. Lawmakers are signaling that every last one will get a close look: not just at physical evidence, but at the logic and legality behind the decisions.There’s still a bigger question that echoes through every committee room and makes headlines abroad. Can the United States still claim the moral high ground if it bends—or breaks—its own code, not to mention international law? As public hearings get underway, that’s the question Congress, the Defense Department, and indeed the entire country will have to confront. However it’s answered, the ramifications likely won’t stay confined to Washington.