U.S. Senators Warn of Possible War Crime Following Naval Attack Orders Linked to Trump Secretary

Original article: “Sería un crimen de guerra”: senadores en EE.UU. tras orden de ataques en el Caribe atribuida a secretario de Trump

The security policy of the Donald Trump administration is under scrutiny again as U.S. senators caution that a war crime may have occurred in light of revelations regarding a series of attacks on a Venezuelan vessel last September. The concern arises after the White House confirmed that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth authorized the naval operations.

According to reports from the U.S. government, Hegseth approved Admiral Frank Bradley to carry out multiple attacks against a boat allegedly linked to drug trafficking in the Caribbean Sea. The White House defended the operation, stating it was conducted in «self-defense,» in international waters and in accordance with armed conflict law.

Senators Warn That Any Attack on Survivors Could Be a War Crime

The debate ignited following a report by The Washington Post, which claims a second attack was ordered to eliminate two survivors from the initial strike. According to the report, the directive was to «take out everyone» aboard the vessel.

In response to these allegations, U.S. senators from both parties expressed concern. Democrat Tim Kaine warned that «this rises to the level of war crime if true,» emphasizing the severity of a potential attack on individuals who no longer pose a threat. Republican Congressman Mike Turner stated that if a second strike against defenseless survivors is confirmed, it would be considered «an illegal act.»

Both agreed that the situation warrants immediate investigation.

U.S. Congress Launches Bipartisan Investigation

The revelations have prompted the Senate and House Armed Services Committees to initiate a formal review of the legality of the operation. Legislators from both sides emphasized that while there is no confirmation regarding the alleged second attack, the mere possibility of firing upon castaways raises serious legal questions.

Congress aims to determine:

• Whether Hegseth sanctioned a secondary attack against survivors.
• Whether that attack constitutes an illegal use of force.
• If the operation complied with international humanitarian law.
• What protocols were followed and who participated in the operational orders.

From the Executive branch, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt defended the operation, asserting that Admiral Bradley acted «within his authority» and that the destruction of the vessel was necessary to protect the United States.

Trump Distances Himself Amid Increasing International Pressure

Donald Trump, when questioned by the press, stated that he would not have authorized a second attack and noted that Hegseth denied giving such an order. However, the White House’s official confirmation of the general authorization for the attacks has not quelled the criticism.

The case is also tied to the regional political climate. Trump has suggested the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela and has even stated that the country’s airspace should be considered «closed entirely,» a message that has heightened tensions in Caracas.

An Operation Raising Questions About Legality, Use of Force, and Human Rights

What began as a drug enforcement operation has transformed into an international debate about the excessive use of force by the United States. If the existence of a second deliberate attack on defenseless survivors is confirmed, human rights organizations and legal experts agree that it could amount to a war crime, as suggested by U.S. senators.

For Caribbean communities, these events highlight the direct impact of foreign military operations in maritime areas frequented by fishermen, merchants, and families unrelated to drug trafficking.

The outcome of the Congressional investigations could set a crucial precedent for civilian oversight over military decision-making and the scrutiny of lethal force usage in transnational contexts.