It sounds like a plot ripped from a bargain-bin thriller novel. The Washington Post — leaning on a single anonymous source, of course — claims that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth personally ordered the execution of two narcotics smugglers after their boat was destroyed.
This supposedly happened in the Caribbean on September 2, 2025, just as the U.S. military finally stopped the absurd “catch-and-release” approach to drug traffickers that dominated past administrations. Instead of politely confiscating narcotics and sending smugglers back out to sea so they could try again — the standard operating procedure under the old, timid rules — the military is actually taking decisive action to stop cartel operations cold:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.
A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.
The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.
The narrative emerges just one week after a group of six Democrat Senators and Congress members, referred to as the Seditious Six, shared a video that appeared to urge armed forces personnel to resist “illegal” directives from President Trump:
The commander overseeing the operation from Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, told people on the secure conference call that the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo, according to two people. He ordered the second strike to fulfill Hegseth’s directive that everyone must be killed.
Later in the day, President Donald Trump released a redacted 29-second surveillance drone video showing the attack. The video does not include any footage of the subsequent strike on the survivors.
Needless to say, the Trump administration, via Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, is not only denying the story, but said publicly that they told the Post the story was bogus — and, true to form the Post didn’t listen and ran the BS anyway:
We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday.
These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth.
Fake News is the enemy of the people. https://t.co/CgpNBfb2gf— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) November 29, 2025
His deputy, Kingsley Wilson, stated that all lethal actions against the drug runners are justified and stem from the classification of the drug cartels as Designated Terrorist Organizations, along with a presidential declaration confirming that a “non-international armed conflict” is occurring between the drug cartels and the United States.
Setting aside the fact that there’s zero verified evidence this ever happened — and the administration flatly denies it — the rush to label this a “war crime” requires a mountain of assumptions.
For one, according to the Washington Post, “SEAL Team 6, known formally as Naval Special Warfare Development Group and under JSOC command, conducted the intelligence collection and targeting for this attack and several others, according to two people.” This implies the intelligence behind the September 2 attack was confirmed through on-the-ground reconnaissance rather than satellite or electronic means.
Two, this suggests that the individuals on the boat were the intended targets rather than the vessel or its cargo. If the ship itself were the target, it could be argued that the two survivors would be entitled to the protections outlined in the Geneva Convention for those shipwrecked, injured soldiers, and pilots who are suspended in their parachutes. If the individuals were the focus, then they would be considered legitimate targets, similar to how paratroopers can be lawfully engaged before they reach the ground.
Thus, three, Hegseth’s order and the admiral’s follow-up targeting order make perfect sense if the mission is to take out the smugglers.
At this stage, there isn’t nearly enough credible information in the story for any rational person to make a judgment — though there’s more than enough fodder for those desperate to take down Pete Hegseth, sow distrust between Trump and the military, and somehow cast drug traffickers as the real victims.
Viewed honestly, the piece — built on a single anonymous source and shaky insinuations — looks like a pre-packaged shield for the Seditious Six and their allies. It gives them a talking point so they don’t end up humiliated like Colorado Democrat Rep. Jason Crow and Michigan Dem Sen. Elissa Slotkin, neither of whom could cite a single example of the “illegal orders” they’ve been breathlessly railing about.
Democrat Rep. Jason Crow is asked FOUR TIMES what "illegal orders" he and his Democrat colleagues are referring to in their video calling for an insurrection.
He can't answer — because they are lying. pic.twitter.com/vNQGGOegEQ
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 19, 2025
When questioned about the “illegal” orders they refer to, you can be sure they will highlight this story as an illustration.
There is another item at work here. The article quotes “Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign.” In his opinion, “That’s one of the problems with the law of armed conflict — the state using force is judge, jury and executioner.”
It honestly chills me to think about the kind of “advice” he must have given commanders when he clearly doesn’t even believe in the basic premise of using force. And let’s be real: a lot of these former military lawyers aren’t outraged on principle — they’re outraged because they’ve been cut out of the kill chain. Commanders no longer need to trot over and ask their JAG officer for permission slips before taking action. Now those lawyers are stuck in the back row of the ops center, no one is talking to them, and their egos are bruised.
The bigger point is this: there is zero evidence that any of this happened, or that it unfolded remotely the way the Post claims. The fact that no other major outlet has touched this story is telling. And the Post leaning heavily on a nearly three-month-old piece from The Intercept — a fringe, far-left publication — should raise even more eyebrows. Unless real, verifiable information emerges showing an actual crime occurred, this looks like the Washington Post doing what it always does when a Republican is in the Oval Office: manufacturing a scandal and hoping something sticks.
