Hegseth’s Past Remarks on ‘War Crimes’ Intensify Scrutiny Over Lethal Caribbean Strike

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing a rising tide of bipartisan criticism over a controversial U.S. military operation in the Caribbean, a situation made more acute by the resurfacing of his own past statements condemning “abject war crimes.” The incident, which occurred on September 2, involved a lethal strike on an alleged drug-trafficking vessel, followed by a secondary strike that killed survivors, prompting sharp condemnation and calls for accountability from lawmakers.

The controversy centers on the dual nature of the attack. After an initial U.S. strike neutralized the boat, a subsequent military action was launched against individuals who had survived the first engagement. This second strike resulted in their deaths, a detail that has become the focal point of the ensuing political and ethical firestorm.

Adding to the complexity of his position, Secretary Hegseth addressed his personal involvement during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. He confirmed to reporters that he had observed the operation in real time but was not present for its deadly conclusion. “I watched that first strike live,” Hegseth stated. “As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do, so I didn’t stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs. So I moved on to my next meeting.”

Despite his physical absence from the monitoring of the second strike, the administration has affirmed that Hegseth authorized the overall actions taken during the operation. Furthermore, officials have maintained that the admiral who directly ordered the strike on the survivors acted within legal bounds.

However, that assessment is being fiercely challenged on Capitol Hill. Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), whose career includes four years as an active-duty Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the Air Force and another 21 years in the reserves, offered a starkly different legal and moral interpretation. On Tuesday, Lieu declared the action a violation of established laws of conflict.

“I served on active duty as a JAG for four years, and then an additional 21 years in the reserves. And let me be very clear: Killing shipwrecked survivors is a war crime,” Lieu asserted. He further argued that any U.S. military member who participated in such an act, including those in the chain of command up to Secretary Hegseth, should face punitive measures.

The debate has been dramatically amplified by the emergence of Hegseth’s own words from an April 2016 event with the Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley. During that discussion, years before his appointment as Defense Secretary, Hegseth spoke unequivocally about the importance of holding military personnel accountable for unlawful actions.

“I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes,” Hegseth said at the 2016 forum. “If you’re doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that.”

In those same remarks, he elaborated on the moral and ethical standards he believed were inherent to the U.S. military, even suggesting a duty to disobey illegal commands. “That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief,” Hegseth explained. “There’s a standard, there’s an ethos, there’s a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do.”

These eight-year-old comments now stand in stark contrast to the events of September 2 and the administration’s defense of the operation he authorized. The juxtaposition of his past principles with his current predicament has provided significant fuel for critics demanding a more thorough investigation and explanation. The scrutiny is reportedly coming from members of both the Republican and Democratic parties, indicating a broad-based concern that transcends typical partisan divides.

The Hill has confirmed it has reached out to the Pentagon for a response to Secretary Hegseth’s 2016 statements and their relevance to the current situation, but a formal reply has not yet been detailed. As the administration navigates the fallout, the core of the issue remains the charge that killing survivors, regardless of their alleged crimes, constitutes a grave breach of military conduct and international law—a principle that the Defense Secretary himself once appeared to champion.