DID PETE HEGSETH'S REPORTED "KILL THEM ALL" ORDER CONSTITUTE A WAR CRIME?

Since early September, the US military has conducted 21 lethal attacks on 22 suspected narcotics-trafficking boats in the Pacific Ocean and, primarily, the Caribbean Sea near the coast of Venezuela. These attacks have caused outrage both domestically and in the international area, where many legal experts have categorized them as illegal. Colombian President Gustavo Petro has even accused the United States government and President Donald Trump of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Caribbean. The Trump administration has justified these attacks by officially characterizing them as part of a “non-international armed conflict.” However, a Washington Post (WAPO) article on November 28th raised the ante, even if these attacks do fall under wartime rules.

The WAPO article reported that, on September 2nd, in one of the first missions of this new campaign, orders were issued to kill two crew members who had survived the initial US attack on their boat in the Caribbean near Venezuela. The article reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth himself gave the order to “kill them all.” In subsequent days, Hegseth initially called the article fake news and, later, said that he didn’t give the order. In his absence, Hegseth said the order was issued by the then Commander of Joint Special Forces Operations Command, Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley. Hegseth also defended and praised Bradley’s actions.

One group that was not as impressed by Bradley’s orders was the Former Judge Advocates General (JAGs) Working Group, which called the actions a “war crime” if the attacks are truly part of combat operations. If they weren’t part of a legal conflict, as many have contended, the Former JAGS Working Group says that the orders constitute murder, and every military member who took part in that action is subject to criminal prosecution.

You can find the official statement on this event from the Former JAGs Working Group here.

What Is the Former JAGs Working Group?

The Former JAGs Working Group is an ad hoc organization composed of former JAGs, who are retired senior military lawyers and legal advisers from the US Armed Forces.

The group was established in February 2025 in response to perceived threats to the military's legal independence.

The key event that spurred the group’s creation was Hegseth’s firing of Army JAG Lt General Joseph B. Berger III and Air Force JAG Lt General Charles Plummer for not being “well-suited” to provide recommendations when lawful orders were given.

What Did the Former JAGs Working Group Say About the Attack?

The five-page report is pointed and alarming. Here are the most important paragraphs from the report:

The Former JAGs Working Group unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both. Our group was established in February 2025 in response to the SECDEF’s firing of the Army and Air Force Judge Advocates General and his systematic dismantling of the military’s legal guardrails. Had those guardrails been in place, we are confident they would have prevented these crimes.

If the U.S. military operation to interdict and destroy suspected narco-trafficking vessels is a “non-international armed conflict,” as the Trump Administration suggests, orders to “kill everybody,” which can reasonably be regarded as an order to give “no quarter,” and to “double-tap” a target in order to kill survivors, are clearly illegal under international law. In short, they are war crimes.

If the U.S. military operation is not an armed conflict of any kind, these orders to kill helpless civilians clinging to the wreckage of a vessel our military destroyed would subject everyone from SECDEF down to the individual who pulled the trigger to prosecution under U.S. law for murder.

In the report, the group also called upon Congress to investigate these types of actions and encouraged the American people to oppose any use of the US military that involves the intentional targeting of anyone – enemy combatants, non-combatants, or civilians –rendered hors de combat (“out of the fight”) as a result of their wounds or the destruction of the ship or aircraft carrying them.

The group also advised its fellow citizens that orders like those described above are the kinds of “patently illegal orders” all military members have a duty to disobey. And, since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are “patently illegal,” anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both.

The report also contained excerpts from International Humanitarian Law, and cites applicable U.S. law to support the group’s opinion.

Next Steps

Congressional committees are currently scrutinizing the incident, with the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees actively involved. On December 4th, top military officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and Admiral Mitch Bradley, Commander of US Special Operations Command (the organization responsible for the narco strike operations), briefed lawmakers.

The officials also provided video footage of the strikes. Following these meetings, lawmakers had varying opinions, with some demanding greater accountability and suggesting potential war crimes investigations. Furthermore, President Trump has indicated that he has "no problem" with releasing the video of the second strike to the public.

Many legal experts and human rights organizations assert that the killing of survivors amounted to murder, given that these individuals were civilians, unarmed, and no longer posed a threat. Consequently, ongoing oversight efforts are anticipated to meticulously examine the specific orders issued by both Hegseth and Admiral Bradley.

A group of senators, with support from both parties, has introduced a War Powers Resolution. This resolution aims to potentially stop what they are calling unauthorized US military "hostilities" in the region, which would necessitate a wider discussion and vote on the ongoing military operations.

Former State Department lawyers and other experts have requested a broader inquiry. This investigation should go beyond the single incident and examine the entire maritime bombing campaign, including how the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel provided legal approval for the policy.

Suggested reads:

• The Largest Coast Guard Bases: Ranked by Land Area & Population
• Is Your Base Water Safe to Drink? What 2025 DoD Testing Really Shows
• The Largest Navy Bases in the World: Ranked by Land Area & Population