Order to Kill? How Trump’s Boat War Suddenly Becomes a Question of War Crimes

In Washington, nerves are rising this weekend over an operation that was originally presented as part of a routine anti-drug effort. For months, the administration has ordered boats off the coast of Latin America to be fired upon, vessels allegedly transporting drugs toward the United States. At least seventeen of these attacks have ended in deaths, always with the same message: decisive toughness against cartels that the White House claims are controlled from Caracas. But a report about the September 2 strike has shattered that narrative and raised the question of whether an American secretary of defense may have issued an order that is simply prohibited under international law.

It was already the fourth attack of this kind since September when the strike on October 3 occurred. On September 2, the U.S. military reported the deaths of eleven people on a boat that Trump, in a social media post, linked to the "Tren de Aragua" cartel. Additional attacks followed on September 15 and 19, each with several deaths, again without evidence of who the victims were. With the most recent strike on October 3, the total rose to at least 21 deaths. As of today, the number of deaths exceeds 80.

The trigger is the allegation that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth may have given an oral order during the September 2 strike instructing that all survivors of the initial missile attack be killed. The accusation is so serious that several lawmakers and senators stepped before the cameras on Sunday. Tim Kaine, Democrat from Virginia, captured the magnitude of the allegation in a single sentence: if this account is true, then we are talking about a war crime. With that, the parameters were set, and it was clear the administration could not shrug off the accusation.

On the Republican side, there is an effort to contain the damage without denying the gravity of the situation. Mike Turner, Republican from Ohio and an influential figure in national security circles, said Congress currently has no evidence of a targeted second strike against people who were no longer able to fight. At the same time, he acknowledged that such an order would clearly be illegal. He pointed out that the armed services committees in both chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives, have opened investigations. The fact that Turner says so openly shows how far the suspicion has now penetrated to the center of American politics.

Behind the scenes, the key players have already positioned themselves. In the Senate, Roger Wicker, Republican from Mississippi and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Jack Reed, Democrat from Rhode Island, released a joint statement. They announced "vigorous oversight" and left no doubt that they intend to reconstruct every step of the operation. Shortly thereafter, in the House of Representatives, Mike Rogers, Republican from Alabama and chairman of the Armed Services Committee there, and the ranking Democrat Adam Smith from Washington, issued a similar signal: they take the reports of follow-on strikes on vessels in the SOUTHCOM region very seriously and will demand a full accounting. That both committees speak in unison across party lines is anything but common in the current political climate.

The president himself is trying to project indifference without losing control. On the return flight from Florida, where he spent Thanksgiving, Donald Trump confirmed that he had recently spoken by phone with Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro. We had already made this public in our November 29, 2025 news roundup under the link: https://kaizen-blog.org/en/29-november-2025-kurznachrichten/ - whether the conversation was good, bad, or not definable at all, he deliberately left open. At the same time, he said he wanted to look into the matter of the alleged follow-on strikes but immediately added that he would not have wanted a second strike directed at survivors. It is the usual mix of distancing and loyalty: Trump shields Hegseth and stresses that the secretary denies having ordered the killing of the two men. And he believes him.

The President of the United States, Donald Trump, confirmed on Sunday, November 30, that he spoke by phone with Nicolás Maduro.

"I cannot say whether it was a good or a bad conversation, it was simply a conversation," Trump replied when asked by journalists about the call.

While the president is braking rhetorically, the administration is accelerating militarily. On Saturday, Trump declared the airspace over and around Venezuela to be "completely closed" and thus gave the campaign a new escalation level. Caracas reacted as expected: the Maduro government called it a colonial threat and an attack on the sovereignty of the country. In parallel, the Pentagon continues to insist that it is targeting drug routes that are in part controlled by Venezuelan power networks and that all actions are conducted within the framework of U.S. and international law.

Pete Hegseth is attempting to rebut the accusation head-on. In a post on X, he accused the media of deliberately spreading false and inflammatory stories to discredit soldiers who, he claims, are doing nothing more than protecting the homeland. All ongoing operations in the Caribbean have been reviewed multiple times by military and civilian lawyers, his camp insists, and every step is legally sound. But this defense leaves a decisive gap: it does not answer the question of whether there was an oral order on September 2 that went beyond the alleged legal framework.

As usual, the fake news is spreading more fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible fighters who protect the homeland. As we have said from the beginning, and in every public statement, these highly effective strikes are explicitly intended as lethal, kinetic attacks. The declared intent is to stop deadly drugs, destroy narco-boats and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every smuggler we kill is associated with a designated terrorist organization.

The Biden administration preferred a kid glove approach and allowed millions of people, including dangerous cartels and unvetted Afghans, to flood our communities with drugs and violence. The Trump administration has sealed the border and gone on offense against narco-terrorists. Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them. Our ongoing operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law. All actions comply with the law of armed conflict and have been approved by the best military and civilian lawyers at every level of the chain of command. Our fighters in SOUTHCOM risk their lives every day to protect the homeland from narco-terrorists, and I will ALWAYS stand behind them.

Within the Republican ranks, there are also lawmakers who defend Hegseth but do not dismiss the accusation outright. Don Bacon, Republican from Nebraska and a former general, said the truth must be established. He can hardly imagine that the secretary of defense would be so reckless as to give an order that would amount to killing all survivors, as that would clearly violate the law of war and basic military reasoning. But even this phrasing contains an admission: if the order was indeed given, it would be impossible to defend politically or legally.

The operation off the coast of South America, long discussed only in specialist circles, has now become a focal point of domestic political conflict. The administration has sold it as part of a determined approach against drug cartels, a distant event on the high seas supposedly separate from classic acts of war. Now the question is whether this shadow war has crossed boundaries that humanitarian law clearly sets: those who can no longer fight must be spared, not eliminated. The fact that both the Senate and the House of Representatives have moved in unison is an unmistakable sign of how seriously the allegation is being taken, despite lingering skepticism among some Republicans toward the media outlet that first reported it. In the best case, an investigation will conclude that no such order was given. In the worst case, the country will have to confront the fact that something happened in an operation long treated as a remote sideshow that places the United States alongside those it typically condemns with moral outrage.

It is still unclear where this story will lead. But it has already revealed a truth that cannot be pushed aside: a government that relies on military force as a routine instrument of domestic and foreign policy will eventually have to explain itself, not only to its voters but to the law. And that is exactly where Washington now finds itself.