A recent Washington Post investigation reported that U.S. forces conducted a second strike on survivors of an initial attack against an alleged drug-trafficking boat off the coast of Venezuela. Legal experts say such an action — intentionally killing people already incapacitated and no longer posing a threat — would violate both peacetime international human rights law and the laws of armed conflict, amounting to an unlawful killing or even a war crime.
According to the report, then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly instructed commanders to “kill everybody” on the targeted vessel. Two survivors from the first strike were later killed in a second attack. The White House denies that Hegseth ordered the deaths and insists the strike was conducted in self-defense. Critics, including former military lawyers, argue that the U.S. is not engaged in a legally valid “armed conflict” with drug cartels and that lethal force in such circumstances would be unlawful.
The revelations have prompted bipartisan concern in Congress, with both House and Senate Armed Services committees launching investigations. The incident has also intensified debates about whether service members can refuse illegal orders. Lawmakers and legal experts stress that personnel are obligated to disobey orders that violate U.S. or international law.