Drug Boat ‘Kill Order’ Row: White House Confirms Pete Hegseth Approved Second Strike; Could He Face Criminal Liability?

The White House on Monday confirmed that a second missile strike was carried out on a suspected drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean after authorization by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The follow-up strike reportedly targeted two survivors clinging to the wreckage after the initial attack, killing all aboard.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Admiral Frank Bradley, who carried out the strikes, acted within his authority and the law. “Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States was eliminated,” she stated.

Administration Defends Strikes as Legal Self-Defence

Leavitt emphasized that the vessel was operated by a group designated as a “narco-terrorist organization” and that the strikes were in line with U.S. laws of war. She defended the second strike as necessary to protect American interests, stating the administration has “designated these narco-terrorists as foreign terrorist organizations,” making them legitimate targets.

“The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and neutralize narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people,” Leavitt added, highlighting the administration’s hardline stance on drug-trafficking threats.

Experts and Lawmakers Raise Legal Concerns

Legal experts argue that ordering a follow-up strike against survivors could constitute a war crime. Rebecca Ingber, a law professor and expert in international law, said: “Declaring that there be no survivors or otherwise killing people hors de combat is a war crime. There is no actual armed conflict here, so this is murder.”

Bipartisan concern has emerged in Congress, with both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees announcing investigations into the incident. Lawmakers have warned that if the allegations are confirmed, the strike could expose Hegseth and others to criminal liability.

Contradictions in Administration Statements

The White House’s defense of the strikes contrasts with statements by President Donald Trump, who said he had no knowledge of a second strike and would not have approved it. Trump added that he trusted Hegseth’s account that he had not given the order, further complicating the narrative.

Political and Legal Fallout

The incident has sparked widespread controversy, raising questions about the legality of targeting suspected drug traffickers with lethal force in international waters. Critics argue that even under the guise of anti-drug operations, killing incapacitated individuals violates international law and U.S. legal norms.

As the congressional investigations proceed, the case could set a precedent for U.S. military engagement against narco-terrorist organizations and clarify the limits of authority for high-ranking defense officials.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump’s BIG Health Update: White House Releases MRI Details Of US president Amid Growing Speculation