Is Pete hegseth making the soldiers do unlawful things
Executive summary
Available reporting shows multiple allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered or encouraged actions that critics call unlawful: former JAGs and some lawmakers say he directed a follow‑up strike that killed survivors of a boat strike, which they say could be a war crime [1]. The Pentagon inspector general separately found Hegseth violated rules by sharing sensitive strike details on Signal, creating operational‑security concerns [2] [3].
1. The central allegation: “kill everybody” and the boat strike
A Washington Post story — cited and analyzed by several outlets — reported that Hegseth gave a directive interpreted as ordering a second strike after survivors were seen clinging to wreckage; a memo from the Former JAGs Working Group said that order and the follow‑up attack may amount to war crimes [1]. That reporting prompted lawmakers, legal experts and commentators to call for investigations and in some cases for prosecution; televised and media figures have likewise labeled the actions unlawful [1] [4].
2. Pentagon and congressional scrutiny: investigations and hearings
Congressional interest has intensified: members of both parties and committees have demanded answers, and Adm. Frank Bradley — the JSOC leader tied to the incident — was set to meet with lawmakers about the strike that killed 11 people, including deaths in a follow‑up attack [5]. The AP reports Hegseth faces “deepening scrutiny” in Congress over the strikes and his leadership style, with some retired officers and lawmakers saying he “wasn’t up to the task” [6].
3. Former military lawyers’ view: potential war crimes
A coordinated response from former judge advocates explicitly warns that ordering survivors to be killed would lack legal basis and could expose Hegseth and the shooters to prosecution under U.S. and international law, particularly if the U.S. is not in an armed conflict that would justify such targeting [1]. Those former JAGs drew directly on the Post’s reporting about an initial strike leaving survivors and a reported order for a second strike [1].
4. Hegseth’s defenses and countercoverage
Supporters and some outlets dispute the worst interpretations. The New York Times coverage of the inspector general probe noted Hegseth said he shared only “nonspecific general details” in a Signal chat and that he declined to be interviewed by the IG during that inquiry; some right‑leaning outlets and commentators argue reporting of a specific “kill everybody” order is mischaracterized [2] [7]. Townhall’s long‑running criticism framed the New York Times as undermining the Post’s portrayal [7].
5. Separate but related concern: Signal and operational security
Independently of the boat‑strike dispute, the Pentagon inspector general concluded Hegseth violated DoD rules by using a private device and Signal to share sensitive, nonpublic strike information, creating operational security risks — though some reporting says no classified information was released in that instance [2] [3]. That IG finding has compounded worries about his judgment and adherence to departmental rules [2].
6. What the record does and does not establish
Available sources document serious allegations, a Post account that prompted legal warnings from former JAGs, Congressional inquiries, and an IG finding about Signal use [1] [5] [2]. Available sources do not conclusively show a final legal determination that Hegseth committed a war crime; what’s reported are investigative findings, allegations from former military lawyers, and ongoing oversight activity rather than criminal convictions [1] [5] [2].
7. Stakes and competing agendas
Critics frame the story as evidence of unlawful conduct and dangerous disregard for legal restraints; allies push back, arguing reporting is exaggerated or lacks context and pointing to Hegseth’s authority over military matters [1] [7]. Political dynamics are explicit: congressional actors, partisan media outlets, former Fox colleagues and late‑night hosts have all weighed in, and these stakeholders have motives to either defend or undermine Hegseth [6] [4] [7].
8. What to watch next
Watch for Congressional hearings with military leaders tied to the strike, any public release of after‑action or IG materials beyond the Signal report, and whether the Department of Justice or military authorities open formal criminal inquiries; current reporting shows investigations and allegations but not a criminal finding [5] [2] [1].
Limitations: This analysis relies solely on available reports in the supplied sources; it does not include documents or reporting published elsewhere and does not assert facts those sources do not state [1] [2].