House Armed Services Committee Announces Investigation Into Hegseth's Possible War Crimes

The Pete Hegseth affair has ignited a formal congressional inquiry into what may amount to war crimes.

In a rare cross-party move, Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Armed Services Committee have publicly committed to investigating allegations that Hegseth ordered U.S. forces to 'kill everybody' aboard a vessel struck in the Caribbean, including survivors clinging to wreckage after the first missile strike.

The allegations, rooted in a detailed report by The Washington Post, centre on an operation conducted on Sept. 2, 2025 by the elite SEAL Team 6 under the command of Frank M. Bradley. According to two individuals with direct knowledge, the first strike left two survivors; a second strike followed on the orders of Bradley, allegedly to comply with Hegseth's instruction that no one be left alive.

Bipartisan Oversight Underway

Senators Roger Wicker (Republican, Mississippi) and Jack Reed (Democrat, Rhode Island), chairman and ranking member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, respectively, issued a joint statement demanding 'vigorous oversight' to determine the full facts.

Shortly after, the House leadership echoed the call. Committee heads in both chambers said they will work together to gather all available evidence. This includes orders, intelligence, and legal rationale behind the strikes to provide a full accounting of the September attack.

The unanimity of the response, from sworn adversaries, stresses the gravity of the allegations.

What Happened on September 2

According to reports, a U.S. surveillance aircraft tracked a vessel in Caribbean waters suspected of ferrying illegal narcotics. Intelligence analysts grew increasingly confident that the 11-person crew was linked to trafficking networks.

A missile strike ignited the boat; when two crew members survived, clinging to the burning wreck, SEAL Team 6 reportedly received a second order, launching a follow-up strike that killed them.

Legal experts have weighed in: under both U.S. and international law, targeting defenseless survivors who pose no imminent threat violates the principle of 'no quarter.' The director of the national security law programme at Georgetown Law, among others, said the action 'would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime.'

To date, internal data cited by the Post indicates that the U.S. military has struck at least 22 vessels in Caribbean and Pacific waters this year, resulting in over 80 deaths.

Hegseth's Defence: Lawful And Necessary

In a social-media post soon after The Post's revelations, Hegseth dismissed the allegations as 'fake news' and reiterated that the strikes were designed to be 'lethal, kinetic strikes' against 'narco-terrorists.' He asserted the operations were lawful under both U.S. and international law, approved by military and civilian lawyers up and down the chain of command.

Pentagon spokespersons have declined to comment further, calling the entire narrative 'completely false.'

If congressional investigators find evidence that the strikes violated the laws of war, particularly by targeting incapacitated survivors, those involved could face criminal prosecution. The supposed 'non-international armed conflict' framing adopted by the administration offers no immunity under international humanitarian law for killings of non-combatants or surrendered combatants.

Former military lawyers scrutinising the case say it may amount not just to extrajudicial killing but to war crime or murder. The stakes are high. How the United States prosecutes (or fails to prosecute) such actions will signal how far it is willing to go in conflating counter-narcotics with kinetic warfare.

International bodies and human rights groups are already reacting. Several governments have denounced the strikes as unlawful, calling for independent investigations. Others warn that such actions undermine long-standing norms about the use of force at sea and accountability in military operations.

The investigation begins now — and not just for Hegseth, but for the American military and its future rules of engagement.