Global & US Headlines
Post Exposé of Hegseth ‘Kill Everybody’ Order Triggers Bipartisan War-Crime Inquiry
A Washington Post investigation published 28 Nov 2025 revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth verbally ordered SEAL Team 6 to leave no survivors during a 2 Sept Caribbean boat strike, prompting both House and Senate Armed Services Committees within 48 hours to launch formal probes into the operation’s legality.
Focusing Facts
- The initial 2 Sept strike off Trinidad hit an 11-person vessel; a follow-on missile killed the last two survivors in the water.
- Since that attack, U.S. forces have executed at least 22 additional boat strikes, bringing the death toll of suspected smugglers to more than 80 by late November.
- Protocols were quietly revised after the incident; in an 16 Oct strike two survivors were instead air-lifted, detained, and later repatriated to Ecuador and Colombia.
Context
This episode echoes the 1968 My Lai cover-up and the 2011–13 U.S. “double-tap” drone strikes in Pakistan—moments when tactical brutality, justified as efficiency, later eroded strategic legitimacy. It also resurrects the late-1980s trend (e.g., 1989’s "Operation Just Cause" in Panama) of recasting counternarcotics work as warfare, now amplified by the blanket “terrorist” label. The deeper current is the century-long creep of executive power to employ lethal force without a declared war, from Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in 1861 to Obama’s 2011 al-Awlaki strike; each precedent normalises the next. Whether Congress reins this in or courts indict future officials will shape international norms on extraterritorial killing for decades—potentially determining if, by 2125, small-scale military force outside battlezones is exceptional or routine statecraft.
Perspectives
Investigative liberal media
e.g., The Washington Post, Raw Story — Portray Hegseth’s alleged “kill everybody” order as an unlawful act that amounts to murder or a war crime, illustrating a pattern of extrajudicial killings by the Trump administration. Reporting leans into scandal-driven narratives based on anonymous sources and highlights anti-Trump framing, which may amplify worst-case legal interpretations while deemphasizing counter-arguments offered by the Pentagon.
Administration-friendly or defense-oriented outlets
e.g., Military.com, statements carried in supportive coverage — Echo Hegseth’s rebuttal that the strikes are “lawful under both U.S. and international law,” describing operations as successful efforts to dismantle narcoterrorism and protect the homeland. Stories rely heavily on Defense Department statements, dismissing critical reporting as “fake news,” which incentivizes preserving institutional reputation and minimizing scrutiny of potential misconduct.
Mainstream broadcast & political reporting focusing on congressional oversight
e.g., ABC News, CBS News, POLITICO, The New York Times — Center coverage on bipartisan lawmakers’ demands for investigations, noting that if the report is accurate the follow-up strike could constitute an illegal act or war crime, but stressing that facts are still being confirmed. By emphasizing the procedural drama on Capitol Hill, this coverage may foreground political theater and uncertainty, potentially soft-pedaling the severity of alleged killings until official inquiries conclude.