Pete Hegseth could be investigated for illegal orders by 5 different bodies – but none are likely to lead to charges
Recent reports surrounding a U.S. military operation in the Caribbean have ignited a firestorm of controversy, particularly regarding the actions taken by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the Trump administration. Allegations have emerged that a military strike on a vessel suspected of drug trafficking not only targeted those involved in illegal narcotics but also resulted in civilian casualties. This has led to critical questions about the legality and potential criminal liability of the officials involved in these operations. Congressional investigations have already been initiated, focusing on a subsequent attack that occurred on September 2, 2025, which reportedly targeted survivors of the initial strike. Legal scholars have raised concerns about possible violations of both international and U.S. criminal law, suggesting that the ramifications of these attacks could extend far beyond the immediate military context.
The investigative landscape is complex, with multiple avenues for accountability. Congress has the authority to summon witnesses and compel testimony, reminiscent of past inquiries into military conduct, such as the investigations following the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. However, the current political climate may complicate these efforts, with partisan divides potentially influencing the investigation’s integrity. Additionally, the U.S. Attorney General has the power to convene a grand jury if there’s evidence of criminal wrongdoing, although skepticism exists regarding the likelihood of such an action, particularly given the administration’s stance that the strikes were justified. The Department of Defense’s Inspector General can also probe allegations of misconduct within the military, but it is important to note that civilians, including high-ranking officials like Hegseth, are not subject to military law. Lastly, the possibility of international legal scrutiny remains, although historically, superpowers like the U.S. have often evaded accountability on the global stage.
As the details surrounding these military operations continue to unfold, it remains uncertain which investigative mechanisms will be employed to ascertain the facts and determine accountability. What is clear, however, is the pressing need for transparency and adherence to legal standards in military engagements, particularly those that result in loss of life. The outcome of these investigations could have significant implications not only for those directly involved but also for the broader discourse on military ethics and governance in the United States. As this situation develops, it serves as a critical reminder of the complex interplay between military action, legality, and political accountability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gHZmMC39Xw
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends a cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC on December 2, 2025.
Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images
News reports about a U.S. military attack
on a boat in the Caribbean allegedly carrying drugs have raised critical questions about the military campaign against drug smugglers being carried out by the Trump administration in that region.
Among them: whether Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth or others face
criminal liability for any of the attacks
. Those attacks killed people alleged to have been involved in illegal narcotics trafficking.
Congressional investigations have begun
into allegations that a Sept. 2, 2025, follow-up attack on two survivors of an earlier attack was illegal and ordered by Hegseth. Some legal scholars have
cited violations of international and United States criminal law
that could come into play.
But as a military law scholar
who spent 20 years as a lawyer and judge in the U.S. Air Force, I know that there aren’t enough facts known yet to determine who is responsible for what. There are five investigative mechanisms that could be used to determine the facts and whether there is criminal liability on the part of both senior civilian officials and military members involved in the now
extensively reported second strike on the suspected drug boat
that resulted in the deaths of civilians.
There are two caveats to this analysis. The first is that the Constitution says a person is to be presumed innocent before being proved guilty. The second is that the story from the White House and the Pentagon
has changed over time
.
Navy Adm. Frank Bradley, center, arrives for a closed-door classified meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Dec. 4, 2025.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Congressional committees investigate
The first investigative mechanism is the Congress itself.
The House of Representatives and the Senate each
have an armed services committee and a foreign relations or foreign affairs committee
. In theory, any of these committees can place people under oath and have them testify, as well as issue subpoenas to obtain information.
This concept isn’t new.
Multiple committees examined
the country’s lack of preparedness preceding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and other military installations in 1941.
Almost every month
during the Vietnam War, one or more of these committees investigated
military matters, including one of the most notorious war crimes in U.S. history. In 1968, Army Lt. William Laws Calley commanded a platoon of soldiers
who murdered close to 500 villagers in My Lai
, including children and the elderly, none of whom posed a threat and none of whom were lawful targets.
But congressional investigations can be highly political
. Even during the My Lai investigation, at least one member of the House, Mendel Rivers, a South Carolina Democrat who was at that time chairman of the Committee on Armed Services,
attempted to shield officers in the chain of command
. There is little reason to believe that a current investigation, conducted by a dramatically polarized Congress, will be free of partisan politics.
Attorney general investigates
A second means of investigating is for the U.S. attorney general to preliminarily conclude that crimes have been committed and
to convene a grand jury to investigate
. A federal grand jury is a constitutional body consisting of ordinary adult citizens. Its operations are governed by the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
, and its role is to investigate whether there is probable cause to determine that a person has violated the criminal laws.
A federal statute prohibits murder
.
As far back as 1820
, if not before, federal grand juries have investigated the crime of “murder on the high seas.”
No member of the president’s administration is immune from the criminal laws of the country, with the exception of the president himself when he has acted in the capacity of president or commander in chief. The Supreme Court in 2024 determined that
the president is mostly immune from prosecution under criminal law
.
But I believe this type of investigation is unlikely. That’s because members of the administration have argued that their actions were legal and that the men killed in the second strike
were continuing in their mission and posed a threat
.
Moreover, the attorney general is supposed to act in an independent capacity from the White House. But Trump’s attorney general,
Pam Bondi, has demonstrated her loyalty to the president and his agenda
in many instances.
Another consideration is that federal agency heads who rely on their attorneys in good faith are presumed to
be immune from the law
. This may be why Hegseth has
stated that lawyers had advised the mission’s commanders
.
Congress and the AG work a case
It is possible that during a congressional investigation one or more witnesses will be accused of lying under oath or accused of contempt.
Congress has the authority to hold individuals in contempt and fine and sentence them, but this is rare. Usually, Congress forwards the claim to the attorney general.
Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor offense
, meaning a person cannot be sentenced to more than a year. Again, I believe it is unlikely that the attorney general would pursue a contempt charge in a federal court from these events.
Inspector general investigates
The Department of Defense’s inspector general can investigate allegations of wrongdoing in the department, and this includes the secretary. In the past, inspectors general have discovered criminal activity, written a publicly releasable report, and then a senior official was prosecuted.
In 2003, the Department of Defense investigated Darleen Druyun, a senior contracting official, for
wrongly steering multimillion-dollar contracts to Boeing
. The investigative report resulted in criminal charges from the Justice Department, and Druyun was found guilty in a criminal trial. Boeing officials also
left the company
, and
the company was fined
.
The military can investigate its civilian members but cannot prosecute them. The
Uniform Code of Military Justice
does not apply to civilians. That includes the president and secretary of defense, even though they are at the pinnacle of the chain of command.
International courts investigate
Finally, an investigation could be mounted through international law as enforced by courts outside of the United States.
Superpowers such as the United States and Russia often get a free pass from international law enforcement. In 1986, the International Court of Justice – a body partly created by the United States –
ruled that the United States under the Reagan administration violated Nicaragua’s sovereignty
during its civil war.
The Reagan administration’s response was that because other nations had disregarded the court,
so too would the United States
. No American official was
ever held to account
for the mining of Nicaragua’s main port or for the arming of rebels that led to the deaths of Nicaraguans.
It’s not clear which, if any, of these mechanisms will be used to hold accountable those who ordered and carried out the September 2025 operation in the Caribbean that killed two survivors of an earlier attack. What is clear is that the methods exist to find the facts – and make judgments based on them.
Joshua Kastenberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
