Were soldiers under pete hegseth's command accused of wrogdoing?
Executive summary
Available reporting says soldiers under Pete Hegseth’s command have been accused of wrongdoing in at least two ways: that he told troops in Iraq to disregard legal guidance on rules of engagement, and that a September “double‑tap” boat strike in the Caribbean—allegedly ordered or authorized by Hegseth—may have killed survivors and prompted war‑crimes and criminal‑liability scrutiny [1] [2]. Inspector‑general and watchdog reporting also accuses Hegseth of mishandling sensitive operational plans via Signal, a separate allegation the Pentagon has characterized as endangering troops [3] [4].
1. The allegation: “Ignore legal advice” in Iraq — the claim and its source
The Guardian reports that Hegseth “told soldiers under his command in Iraq to ignore legal advice” about rules of engagement, citing Hegseth’s own account in his book and describing the comment as directed at JAG (judge advocate general) guidance early in his service there [1]. That passage is a direct, contemporaneous accusation in national reporting; the Guardian frames it as rooted in Hegseth’s own recounting rather than a newly discovered order recorded by others [1].
2. The Caribbean “double‑tap” strike — survivors killed and legal scrutiny
Multiple outlets describe intense scrutiny of a Sept. 2 boat strike in which an initial attack was followed by a lethal follow‑up while survivors were visible; lawmakers, legal experts and human‑rights figures called the action potentially unlawful. Reporting says Hegseth initially minimized coverage but later acknowledged he “authorized” actions while asserting commanders had independent authority—yet congressional inquiries are probing whether the follow‑up strike was illegal and whether he or others face criminal liability [5] [6] [2].
3. Who is accused of wrongdoing — Hegseth vs the troops
Available sources present two distinct threads: (a) allegations that Hegseth personally gave or encouraged unlawful directions (the Iraq anecdote and the reported verbal order to “kill everybody” tied to the Caribbean strike), and (b) investigations into whether operators who executed the strike carried out an unlawful action. The Conversation and The New Republic note congressional probes into whether Hegseth or others could face criminal liability for ordering or executing the September operation [2] [7]. That means accusations attach both to the secretary as a decision‑maker and to the operational chain that executed the mission.
4. Inspector‑general and watchdog findings on other misconduct
Separately, a Pentagon inspector‑general report found Hegseth violated military rules by sharing sensitive operational details on Signal, a use the IG said endangered troops—even as official statements emphasized his authority to declassify some material [3] [8] [9]. The IG finding is administrative and policy‑based but has been presented in reporting as a significant blemish on his stewardship and judgment [3].
5. Political reactions and competing narratives
Reactions split sharply along political lines. Some Democrats and centrist Republicans called for removal and described Hegseth as reckless or a threat to service members; Republican allies including the White House and some commentators argue reporting amounts to a smear and highlight the president’s support [5] [10] [11]. Conservative outlets frame IG findings as exculpatory or overblown; mainstream outlets emphasize potential legal exposure and human‑rights concerns [12] [13] [7].
6. Legal and investigative context — multiple forums may probe wrongdoing
Analysts note at least five possible investigatory avenues that could examine alleged unlawful orders or strikes — criminal, military, congressional, IG and international human‑rights mechanisms — but observers caution none necessarily leads to charges [2]. The Conversation explains that while probes exist, the path from inquiry to prosecution is complex and uncertain [2].
7. What reporting does not yet show
Available sources do not yet produce a public criminal indictment, court finding, or final legal determination that Hegseth or particular soldiers were guilty of war crimes; much of the coverage documents allegations, internal IG findings about policy violations, congressional inquiries, and competing political narratives [3] [2]. The IG report addresses Signal use and policy violations; it does not, in the cited reporting, resolve criminal culpability for the Caribbean strikes [3] [9].
8. Bottom line for readers
Reporting establishes plausible, serious accusations: Hegseth has been accused of urging troops to ignore legal advice in Iraq and of playing a central role in a contested Caribbean “double‑tap” strike that lawmakers and experts say could be unlawful; separate IG findings say he mishandled sensitive plans on Signal [1] [2] [3]. Multiple investigations are ongoing and partisan interpretations diverge sharply, so while accusations are well‑reported, final legal findings have not been produced in the sources reviewed [2] [3].