Legality of U.S. Boat Strikes in the Caribbean Grows Murkier After New Reporting Raises Questions About Orders, Survivors, and Accountability

The debate over the United States’ use of lethal force in the Caribbean intensified this week after new reporting suggested that elite American commandos may have carried out a second strike on survivors of an already-disabled vessel near Venezuela. The emerging details, published by the Washington Post, have triggered bipartisan calls for congressional investigation and raised fundamental questions about the legal boundaries of U.S. military action beyond declared battlefields.

At the center of the controversy are allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegsf (also spelled Hegsmith in some public reports) may have issued instructions amounting to a “no-survivors” directive ahead of the September 2 operation. While the White House has maintained that the United States is not engaged in a conventional armed conflict in the region, it has simultaneously justified recent actions as part of a broader counter-narcotics mission, a classification that carries its own legal implications.

The uncertainty is deepening, and legal analysts warn that the stakes could not be higher. Whether the incident falls within the bounds of armed conflict or whether it amounts to extrajudicial killing may determine not only the political fallout but also potential criminal liability for those who ordered or carried out the strike.

A Two-Stage Attack and a Missing Moment

Public attention began focusing on the September 2 operation after the Post reported that military commandos conducted an initial strike on an alleged drug-smuggling vessel near Venezuela. That first strike was partially recorded in a video later released by then-President Trump the same day. The footage showed the destruction of the boat but did not show anything occurring afterward.

According to the Post’s reporting, the more significant event occurred after the initial strike. Two survivors were reportedly clinging to the wreckage. It was at this point, the report states, that a second strike was carried out, killing the remaining men. The publication attributed this decision to a prior verbal instruction allegedly given by Secretary Hegsf: “no survivors.”

These elements remain unverified by independent outlets. Networks covering the matter have emphasized that the claims come from anonymous sources and internal documents whose authenticity and completeness remain under review.

Still, even the possibility of such an order raises profound legal questions. On air, legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance unpacked the frameworks at play.

The Difference Between a Strike and a Crime

“The central issue is whether the United States was acting within a recognized armed conflict,” Vance explained in an interview. “If it was, the rules of engagement apply, and those rules explicitly prohibit ‘no-quarters’ orders — orders to take no prisoners.”

A no-quarters order is an unlawful directive under international humanitarian law. Even in wartime, combatants who are hors de combat — meaning incapacitated, captured, or otherwise unable to fight — cannot be killed.

If, however, the United States was not engaged in any armed conflict at all, the legal situation changes drastically. Without the cover of wartime rules or a congressionally authorized military operation, using lethal force against individuals who are no longer an imminent threat would not fall under battlefield law. It would instead be governed by domestic criminal law and international human-rights law.

“In that scenario,” Vance said, “what happened would be viewed as an extrajudicial killing, and therefore as an unlawful homicide.”

Public confusion has grown because the White House has provided mixed signals. Officials have insisted there is no declared war but have communicated to Congress that U.S. actions fall under the umbrella of non-international armed conflict involving counter-narcotics operations. Those justifications matter. Classification determines the legal standards the military must follow.

A spokesperson for the administration has not yet clarified the White House’s position in light of the Post’s reporting. Members of Congress, however, have moved quickly.

A Rare Moment of Bipartisan Action

Within 24 hours of the report, a bipartisan group of lawmakers announced that they would pursue a formal inquiry. Their decision was notable not only for its urgency — announced on Black Friday — but also for its unusual lack of partisan rancor. Lawmakers indicated that any suggestion of unlawful military conduct, especially one involving a cabinet-level official, demands exhaustive scrutiny.

“It is too early to assign blame,” one committee aide said in an off-camera briefing, “but it is not too early to insist on facts.”

The investigation is expected to involve multiple committees, including those overseeing national security, foreign affairs, intelligence operations, and military appropriations. Lawmakers are preparing to request classified documents, operational briefings, and testimony from command personnel involved in the planning and execution of the mission.

While congressional inquiries can take months or even years, the speed at which members mobilized reflects the gravity of the allegations. The issue intersects with executive authority, covert operations, civilian oversight of the military, and evolving norms around counter-narcotics missions that resemble hybrid warfare.

Legal Exposure for Commandos and Commanders

If the facts ultimately resemble the reports — a first strike followed by a second strike against non-threatening survivors — both senior officials and on-the-ground personnel could face consequences.

“This is why you investigate first and decide consequences later,” Vance said. “If the facts support that these were unlawful orders and those orders were followed, accountability could take several forms.”

She outlined several possibilities:

• Political ramifications, including resignations or impeachment proceedings for civilian leaders.

• Administrative action within the military, ranging from reprimands to separation from service.

• Criminal liability in cases where the law requires prosecution.

In the military, one of the central protections against such outcomes is the internal legal architecture built around judge advocates (military lawyers). These legal advisers help commanders evaluate whether orders comply with U.S. and international law. Yet Vance noted that earlier this year, Secretary Hegsf reportedly eliminated key portions of that JAG advisory structure, weakening formal lines of legal oversight.

In response, an informal JAG working group formed and released a statement — rare in its public tone — indicating that it believed the action described in the Post’s reporting would be illegal under either wartime or peacetime legal standards.

That public stance by military legal specialists has intensified scrutiny on the Pentagon’s internal processes.

Why Democrats’ “Illegal Order” Video Entered the Conversation

As the controversy spread, Republicans in Arizona opened investigations into a video made earlier this year by several Democratic lawmakers reminding service members that they are legally obligated to refuse unlawful orders. The video resurfaced after the Post story, with critics alleging that the Democrats were pressuring the military.

Vance dismissed the idea that the lawmakers who made the video face legal exposure.

“It was an entirely straightforward restatement of the law,” she said. “Members of the military are required to decline illegal commands. That is not controversial. It is foundational.”

She also noted that the process for challenging an order within the armed forces is well established: raise the concern up the chain of command and consult JAG officers. The complication now is that the JAG system had been partially dismantled by the secretary whose own orders are under scrutiny.

The irony is not lost on legal observers. A structural safeguard designed to prevent unlawful directives may have been weakened just months before allegations surfaced that such a directive may have been given.

The Question of Pardons: A Parallel Drama

Layered onto this controversy is a separate constitutional debate surfacing again after former President Trump said he would consider reversing executive orders tied to President Biden’s use of the autopen. Those orders include pardons.

Trump has claimed for months that any action conducted with an autopen is not legally binding. Former presidents from both parties have used the autopen to sign official documents, and legal scholars nearly unanimously agree that autopen-signed orders are valid.

Vance put the issue to rest in plain terms.

“Pardons cannot be reversed,” she said. “The president’s pardon power is unrestricted except in cases of impeachment. Once issued, a pardon is permanent.”

That may not prevent legal theatrics or litigation, but analysts say courts would dismiss challenges swiftly. The real concern among some lawmakers is whether political pressure campaigns around pardons will intensify in the months ahead, particularly during parallel investigations into military conduct.

A Crisis of Transparency

The threaded complexity of these issues — military accountability, executive authority, congressional oversight, and the political pressures bordering all three — highlight how fragile the framework becomes when facts are scarce.

The central uncertainty remains: what happened after the first strike?

Multiple news organizations have sought information from the Pentagon, but officials have declined to comment, citing ongoing internal reviews. The Coast Guard has not confirmed details of rescue operations or repatriation. Independent verification of survivors’ treatment is still unavailable.

“We know only pieces,” Vance said. “And the most critical seconds of the event — the alleged second strike — are not on video. That gap is everything right now.”

What Happens Next

The coming weeks are expected to bring a flurry of subpoenas, closed-door briefings, and legal analysis. Congressional investigators will examine command logs, communications records, drone footage, witness testimony, and operational authorizations. If the White House or the Pentagon attempts to assert executive privilege, the investigation may enter a more adversarial phase.

Meanwhile, non-governmental legal organizations that monitor military conduct are preparing independent assessments, though those often rely on the same limited public materials journalists and analysts have access to.

Members of the armed forces, too, may soon face interviews. Standard procedure requires that any service member identified as part of a disputed incident be questioned by internal investigators. Those inquiries can take place quietly or escalate into formal legal proceedings.

The broader implications extend beyond this single event. The United States has increasingly relied on counter-narcotics missions, maritime interdictions, and hybrid operations that blur distinctions between law enforcement and wartime action. These gray-zone missions challenge existing legal frameworks, and incidents like the September 2 strike expose those tensions.

“Lines that used to be bright are getting smudged,” one senior defense official said privately. “That is not sustainable.”

The Bigger Question

Beyond the legal debate lies a philosophical one: how should a democracy define the boundaries of force outside its declared wars?

That question has haunted policymakers since the expansion of counterterrorism operations after 2001. But the Caribbean case is different. No terror group is involved. No battlefield was declared. No congressional authorization was given. If the United States used lethal force without a clear legal basis — and especially if orders prohibited taking prisoners — the implications reach far beyond one operation.

This is why the next phase is critical. Without clear, publicly reviewed facts, the public’s ability to understand the legitimacy of U.S. actions erodes.

The investigation will test Congress, the Pentagon, and the White House. It will test whether political interests overshadow structural safeguards. It will test whether internal oversight mechanisms remain robust enough to catch unlawful conduct. And it will test whether the country can reconcile expanding military operations with legal frameworks that were built for a different era.

Until investigators complete their work, the story remains in flux. But the questions raised — about legality, accountability, and democratic control of military force — will linger long after any final report is issued.