Jonah Goldberg: You can’t hide from war crimes by calling them ‘fake news’
Since September 2023, the U.S. military has been conducting controversial operations in the Caribbean, targeting boats suspected of drug trafficking. These military actions have sparked intense debates regarding their legality, as Congress has neither declared war nor authorized the use of force against what the Trump administration has labeled “narco-terrorists” or, more pointedly, against Venezuela—a country that seems to be the real focus of the U.S. military buildup in the region. The Trump administration’s approach has involved unilaterally designating alleged drug traffickers as terrorists, allowing military action without explicit Congressional approval. This has led to a significant rift with allies, notably the United Kingdom, which recently announced it would cease sharing intelligence with the U.S. due to concerns over the legality of these operations.
A recent report by the Washington Post revealed a shocking incident from the initial operations in September. After a strike on a suspected drug-trafficking boat, U.S. Navy special operations forces allegedly received orders to conduct a second strike on survivors clinging to the wreckage. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly directed that “the order was to kill everybody,” raising grave concerns about potential war crimes under both American and international law. Hegseth’s subsequent social media response criticized the Post’s reporting as “fake news,” yet he did not deny the existence of a second strike. This ambiguity has prompted mixed reactions, even among Republican lawmakers, leading to a shift in the narrative from dismissing the report to denying the legality of the orders given. President Trump later supported Hegseth, claiming he would not have approved such an action, further complicating the situation and raising questions about accountability within the military command structure.
The overarching implications of these operations extend beyond legalities, suggesting a troubling pattern of military engagement that may serve as a pretext for regime change in Venezuela. Critics argue that if the administration possesses evidence justifying these military actions, it should present it to Congress and seek formal authorization. The discourse surrounding the legality of military orders has also intensified, with some Democratic lawmakers cautioning against following illegal directives—a point that has drawn ire from Trump and his supporters. However, the real concern remains: issuing illegal orders not only undermines military integrity but also creates confusion and diminishes morale among troops. As the situation unfolds, the need for transparency and adherence to legal frameworks in military operations has never been more critical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKcOyhLrK9Q
Since September of this year, the United States military has been blowing up boats allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean.
Whether these attacks are legal is hotly debated. Congress hasn’t declared war or even authorized the use of force against “narco-terrorists” or against Venezuela, the apparent real target of a massive U.S. military build-up off its coast.
The Trump administration has simply unilaterally designated various — alleged — drug traffickers as “terrorists” or members of “terrorist organizations,” and then waged war upon them. The administration’s internal legal finding supporting all of this hasn’t been publicly released. But whatever their case in private is, it was sufficiently weak that the British government
announced
in early November it would no longer share intelligence with the U.S. relevant to the Caribbean operation over concerns about its lawfulness.
On Friday, the Washington Post dropped a
bombshell report
about the first of these operations back in September. During the strike, the Navy not only took out a suspected drug-trafficking boat — as had been reported previously — but when survivors were spotted clinging to the wreckage, the special operations commander overseeing the operation ordered a second strike on the survivors, in order to comply with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to kill everyone involved.
“Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation,” the Post reported. “‘The order was to kill everybody,’ one of them said.”
Whatever you think about the broader Caribbean operation, it is a simple fact that shooting survivors at sea is war crime, under American and international law. Of course,
as some suggest
, since this operation is not a legal war, maybe it’s not a war crime, just a crime-crime.
Later Friday, in a lengthy
social media post
, Hegseth attacked the Washington Post’s report as an instance of the “fake news … delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting.”
What Hegseth didn’t do was directly deny the report. Instead, he insisted that “we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’”
Declaring your intent was to kill everybody on the first try isn’t a legal excuse to finish off unarmed survivors.
Hegseth offered follow-up posts that were
boastful
or
childish
, but did not deny the charge.
With even Republican members of Congress expressing grave concerns, the official story changed from “fake news” to an actual denial.
Trump said
that Hegseth told the president that he did not give any such illegal order, “and I believe him, 100%,” adding that he “wouldn’t have wanted that. Not a second strike.”
So it now appears the White House has confirmed there was a second strike on the survivors, and conceded that it would at least be against the president’s policy. Whether the White House will concede the strike was unlawful remains to be seen. Indeed, exactly what happened remains murky. It surely seems like someone gave an order for a second strike. And if it wasn’t Hegseth, whoever that person was could be looking at a court-martial — or given who the commander-in-chief is, a pardon.
But I don’t want to get ahead of the news.
Instead, I’ll make a few points.
First, a minor gripe: This administration and its defenders need to be more selective in their use of the term “fake news.” I have no problem calling a false story “fake news.” But if you know that a story isn’t false, calling it “fake news” just sets you up to look like even more of a liar or hypocrite down the road when you end up admitting the truth and defending actions you once pretended were slanderous.
More importantly, the whole Caribbean strategy is constitutionally and legally dubious. As a matter of foreign policy, it looks more and more like a pretext for some kind of
regime
change
gambit
in
Venezuela
. If the administration has evidence that justifies its actions, they should share it with Congress and ask for permission to wage war.
Even more important: illegal orders cannot be justified. When a half-dozen Democratic members of Congress released a video saying that the military shouldn’t follow “illegal orders,” the president and many of his defenders became hysterical. Trump lamented that America has become so “soft” that such “seditious behavior” isn’t punished by death anymore.
More sober critics of the Democrats complained that the video sowed confusion in the ranks and hurt morale. I’m actually sympathetic to that argument.
But you know what else sows confusion and hurts morale? Issuing illegal orders – or even appearing to do so.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is
@JonahDispatch
.
