Trump Allies Dismiss Alleged Attacks on Venezuelan Boat Strike Survivors Amid Legal Concerns

Washington, D.C. — Trump allies pushed back vehemently on Sunday against a Washington Post report alleging that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered additional military strikes to kill survivors of a suspected drug trafficking boat off the coast of Venezuela. The strikes, reportedly carried out in September, have raised significant legal concerns, with critics suggesting the actions could be considered war crimes under international law.

What’s at Stake: Legal and Ethical Implications

The allegations come at a time when the Trump administration has been ramping up its military presence in the Caribbean and South American regions, particularly around Venezuela. Legal experts have warned that targeting survivors of a maritime attack could violate the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), potentially constituting an illegal act under international war laws.

In response to the allegations, Hegseth dismissed the report as “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory,” using X (formerly Twitter) to label the claims as unfounded. He was joined by several Republican leaders who voiced skepticism over the accuracy of the report.

What They’re Saying: Republican Leaders Push Back

Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” to reject the report’s claims, labeling them as “anonymous” and “unproven.” He further argued that the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard have rescued survivors from similar strikes in the past, suggesting that such actions contradict the reported order to target survivors.

“I don’t know if I believe that at all,” Mullin said. “I think the Navy and Coast Guard have rescued and returned survivors from other strikes. President Trump is simply protecting the United States by being proactive.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a retired Air Force general, echoed these sentiments on ABC’s “This Week,” saying it would be “foolish” for Hegseth to order such an illegal strike. Bacon emphasized that such an order would directly violate the Law of War, which prohibits the targeting of shipwrecked survivors.

“I’m very suspicious that he would have done something like that because it would go against common sense,” Bacon stated. “If it was as the article says, that is a violation of the law of war.”

Legal Concerns: War Crimes and Accountability

While the Trump allies remain firm in their dismissal of the allegations, some legal experts and Democratic leaders have raised serious concerns. Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy captain, called the alleged second strike on survivors “a war crime” if the reports prove accurate. Kelly warned against any actions that would compromise the U.S. military’s reputation for professionalism and adherence to international law.

“We’re not Russia. We’re not Iraq. We hold ourselves to a very high standard of professionalism,” Kelly told CNN. His comments came as part of a broader discussion about U.S. military ethics, with Kelly reminding military personnel of their obligation to refuse illegal orders, an issue that has become a point of contention following the reports.

In fact, Kelly was part of a group of Democratic veterans who recorded a video reminding service members that they should not follow orders deemed illegal by international law. The military investigation into Kelly’s involvement in the video has since been initiated, though Kelly expressed defiance.

“I’m not backing down,” Kelly said. “They don’t scare me.”

Congressional Oversight: Bipartisan Investigation Underway

The controversy has caught the attention of members of Congress, with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) issuing a joint statement on Saturday promising rigorous oversight of military actions in the Caribbean region. They pledged to investigate the reported attacks, which allegedly targeted boats involved in narcotics trafficking.

“We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region,” the statement read, referring to the U.S. Southern Command that oversees military operations in Latin America and the Caribbean. “We are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.”

This push for greater transparency comes amid reports that a congressional briefing scheduled to discuss these strikes was abruptly canceled, adding fuel to the fire for critics who are demanding clarity on the Pentagon’s actions.

In October, the admiral overseeing the South American and Caribbean regions, Admiral Craig Faller, stepped down, fueling further speculation about potential internal challenges surrounding the operations.

Legal Justification: Attorney General Dodges Questions

Despite the growing controversy, Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to comment in-depth on the legal justification for the strikes. When asked on Fox News Sunday whether the Office of Legal Counsel had issued a memo approving the strikes, Bondi deflected, focusing instead on the broader issue of drug trafficking.

“Venezuela drug dealers need to tread very, very carefully,” Bondi said, without addressing the legality of the reported attacks.

The Law of War: Protecting Survivors

The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual explicitly addresses the issue of targeting shipwrecked survivors, stating that orders to fire upon survivors would be a clear violation of international law. This standard is part of the broader legal framework that governs the actions of U.S. military personnel during armed conflict.

“For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual reads, making it clear that such orders are not only unethical but unlawful under the Geneva Conventions.

Conclusion: A High-Stakes Investigation

The allegations of follow-up strikes on survivors are raising serious legal and ethical questions about U.S. military operations in the Caribbean. As lawmakers on both sides of the aisle call for a thorough investigation, the unfolding controversy could have significant implications for U.S. military conduct and the future of its operations in Latin America.

For now, attention will remain focused on the investigation and whether the claims of illegal orders by Pete Hegseth and others will be substantiated. In the meantime, the larger debate about the U.S. military’s role in the region and its adherence to international law is likely to continue.