Pete Hegseth may face investigations for issuing illegal orders by 5 different bodies – but unlikely to result in charges

Recent coverage of a U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean, allegedly transporting drugs, has sparked intense debate over the Trump administrations operations against narcotics trafficking in the region. Central questions include whether Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth or others could face criminal responsibility for the attacks that reportedly killed individuals involved in illegal drug activities.

Congress has launched inquiries into claims that a follow-up strike on September 2, 2025, targeting two survivors of an earlier attack, may have been unlawful and ordered by Hegseth. Legal experts have pointed to potential breaches of both international law and U.S. criminal statutes.

Despite these concerns, military law scholars note that insufficient evidence currently exists to assign culpability. Five investigative avenues could clarify facts and determine whether senior civilian and military officials bear criminal liability for the second strike that resulted in civilian deaths.

Congressional Oversight

The first avenue is congressional oversight. Both the House and Senate have committees on armed services and foreign affairs capable of summoning witnesses under oath and issuing subpoenas. Historical precedents include investigations into the lack of preparedness prior to Pearl Harbor and ongoing military oversight during the Vietnam War, including the notorious My Lai massacre of 1968.

However, congressional inquiries are often influenced by partisan politics, and there is little reason to believe that current investigations in a polarized Congress would be exempt.

Attorney General Involvement

The U.S. attorney general could initiate an investigation by convening a federal grand jury to examine whether crimes were committed. While federal law prohibits murder, including on the high seas, the likelihood of a formal prosecution appears low. Administration officials have asserted the strikes were legal and that those killed posed ongoing threats. Additionally, Attorney General Pam Bondi has demonstrated strong loyalty to the president, which may limit the independence of any investigation.

Federal officials who act on legal advice in good faith are generally shielded from liability, which Hegseth has cited as justification for the operations.

Congressional and Attorney General Coordination

If witnesses provide false testimony or refuse compliance during congressional hearings, Congress may hold them in contempt, a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison. Typically, these cases are referred to the attorney general, but prosecution remains unlikely under the current circumstances.

Department of Defense Inspector General

The DoD inspector general can investigate allegations of misconduct, including actions by the secretary. Past cases, such as the 2003 investigation of Darleen Druyun, have led to criminal charges. However, military law cannot prosecute civilian officials, including the president or secretary of defense, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

International Legal Mechanisms

International courts offer another potential investigative path, though superpowers like the U.S. and Russia often avoid consequences. Historical cases, such as the Reagan administrations actions in Nicaragua, show that even clear violations of international law may not result in accountability for U.S. officials.

Which, if any, of these mechanisms will be applied to those responsible for the September 2025 Caribbean strike remains uncertain. What is evident is that established legal and investigative frameworks exist to establish facts and assess responsibility.

Author: Grace Ellison