Have investigations examined Hegseth’s unit for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan or Iraq and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
Multiple news outlets report that former and current officials, legal experts and several congressional committees have opened or called for investigations into Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s role in a Sept. 2, 2025 double‑strike on an alleged drug‑smuggling boat—centering on reporting that he ordered forces to “kill everybody” and that survivors were struck in a follow‑up attack [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and commentary are divided: some former JAGs and lawmakers say the actions could amount to war crimes or murder [1] [4], while other outlets and commentators stress disputes over sourcing and factual context, including at least one report that undercut the Post’s central claim [5] [6].
1. What investigations have been launched — who is looking and why
Congressional committees in both chambers have opened inquiries after The Washington Post published reporting that Hegseth gave a spoken order to “kill everybody,” and that a second strike killed two survivors of the initial strike; GOP‑led committees are among those looking into the matter [3] [2]. The Former JAGs Working Group — a body of retired military lawyers — urged Congress to investigate use of lethal force against incapacitated individuals and argued that if the U.S. was not in armed conflict, the alleged orders could amount to murder under U.S. law [1].
2. Military‑legal and criminal questions being raised
Former judge advocates and independent legal analysts say the reported facts — notably striking people who appeared to be alive after an initial attack — raise the specter of war crimes or ordinary homicide depending on the legal characterization of the operation (armed conflict vs. law‑enforcement action) and the contemporaneous knowledge of commanders [1] [4]. The Intercept and The Nation note that the chain of command could face investigation and possible criminal liability if the reported orders and outcomes are borne out [4] [7].
3. Official investigative bodies and watchdog reporting
In addition to congressional probes, press reporting says multiple oversight and investigative channels are active or possible: House and Senate Armed Services briefings for senior officers, Inspector General inquiries into related conduct, and separate criminal or administrative investigations could be contemplated — though The Conversation cautions that several mechanisms exist but historically rarely lead to criminal charges against senior officials [2] [8].
4. Conflicting reporting and challenges to the Post’s account
Reporting has not been unanimous. Some conservative and other outlets have pushed back, publishing pieces that call the Post’s story a “hoax” or say subsequent reporting by other outlets undercut the central allegation; a Townhall piece cited a New York Times report said to contradict the Post’s framing [6] [5]. These disputes highlight reliance on anonymous sources and differences in contextual timelines cited by competing reports [5].
5. Political and institutional context shaping responses
Reactions have been bipartisan in tone: Democrats called for accountability while some Republicans also expressed concern about legality if the reporting is accurate [2] [3]. At the same time, defenders and partisan outlets characterize the controversy as a media campaign to remove or discredit Hegseth, illustrating an explicit political stake in how investigations proceed and are framed [9] [6].
6. What outcomes the reporting anticipates — realistic prospects for prosecution
Analysts note a range of possible outcomes: congressional hearings, public watchdog reports, administrative consequences, and theoretical criminal referrals. But commentators and legal scholars cited by The Conversation and other outlets warn that high‑level prosecutions are historically uncommon; investigative paths exist but do not guarantee charges [8]. Advocacy groups and former JAGs explicitly called for criminal accountability if facts match allegations [1] [4].
7. What remains unclear and limits of current reporting
Available sources do not provide a public, conclusive record of investigative findings or disciplinary actions against Hegseth; much depends on classified evidence, internal military records, and testimony that reporters say is still being collected or contested [1] [10]. Several outlets report an inspector‑general probe related to Hegseth’s handling of classified information that is separate but adds pressure and scrutiny [10] [11].
8. Bottom line for readers
The allegations prompted multiple inquiries and sharp legal warnings from former military lawyers and members of Congress that the strikes could amount to war crimes or murder if the Post’s account is accurate [1] [4]. At the same time, competing reports and partisan commentary dispute central facts and emphasize political motives, so outcomes will hinge on classified evidence, formal inquiries already under way, and whether accountability mechanisms choose to pursue criminal or administrative remedies [5] [8].