Legal experts label Trump administration's admission as a war crime

Following days of denials, the Trump administration acknowledged on Monday that a second lethal strike on a suspected drug trafficking vessel in the Caribbean did take place. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had authorized an admiral to carry out multiple attacks, and described the second strike as being executed in "self-defense to protect Americans and U.S. interests."

Before the confirmation, legal analysts and lawmakers had already raised alarms over the incident. Critics argue that even under the administrations stated justification for armed operations at sea, targeting survivors of the initial strike could constitute a war crime or murder.

The Washington Post, citing two individuals with direct knowledge, reported that a Special Operations commander overseeing the September 2 operation ordered a second strike on survivors clinging to the wreckage of the first target. Sources indicated that the order came directly from Hegseth, with instructions to "kill everybody."

Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, a former Justice Department lawyer under George W. Bush, stated there is "no conceivable legal justification" for the order. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual prohibits giving "no quarter," meaning it is illegal to refuse to spare anyone, including those unable to defend themselves or seeking to surrender, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

A group of former U.S. military lawyers, known as the Former JAGs Working Group, highlighted that if the operation is considered a "non-international armed conflict," commands to kill all survivors and double-tap targets are illegal under international law and qualify as war crimes. If the strikes do not fall under any armed conflict classification, they could be prosecuted as murder under U.S. law.

The administration claims over 80 people have been killed in more than 20 strikes on vessels allegedly transporting drugs from Venezuela, justifying the attacks as targeting terrorist organizations. The Pentagon, through Chief Spokesman Sean Parnell, initially denied details of Hegseths orders, labeling reports as "completely false."

After the acknowledgment of the second strike, Leavitt defended the action as authorized under legal authority to eliminate threats to the United States. However, questions remain about how survivors of a strike could realistically pose such a threat.

Political reaction has been bipartisan. Senate Foreign Relations Committee members, including Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), described the operation as potentially constituting war crimes. Republican Representatives Mike Turner (Ohio) and Don Bacon (Neb.) also acknowledged the serious legal implications, though Bacon expressed skepticism over the report's accuracy.

Experts warn that the situation highlights broader concerns about U.S. military operations being justified under the "war on drugs," potentially bypassing legal frameworks and international norms. Critics argue these actions risk escalating military engagement under the guise of counter-narcotics efforts, while failing to address domestic drug issues effectively.

This revelation marks a critical point in the debate over U.S. military conduct and international law compliance under the Trump administration.

Author: Sophia Brooks