Defense Secretary Hegseth Faces Scrutiny Over 'Illegal Orders' Amid Dual Controversies

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is at the center of two escalating controversies regarding "illegal orders," drawing sharp criticism and sparking debate over military conduct and accountability. The disputes involve his strong condemnation of Democratic lawmakers who advised service members on refusing unlawful orders, and recent allegations that he himself issued an illegal "kill everybody" directive during Caribbean anti-drug operations. Political commentator David Frum highlighted the perceived irony, tweeting, "> "So now we know why Secretary of Partying Hegseth was so touchy on the subject of illegal orders."

Hegseth has been highly critical of a video released by six Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Mark Kelly, which reminded military personnel of their duty to disobey unlawful orders. He labeled the group the "Seditious Six" and called their message "despicable, reckless, and false," even threatening Kelly, a retired Navy captain, with potential court-martial proceedings. Hegseth contended that Kelly's conduct "brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately," and ordered the Navy Secretary to review Kelly's comments for "potentially unlawful conduct."

Simultaneously, a Washington Post report alleges that Hegseth verbally ordered a second strike to eliminate survivors of a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean in September. According to sources, after an initial missile strike, two survivors were clinging to the wreckage, prompting the Special Operations commander to order a second strike to comply with Hegseth's directive to "kill everybody." Legal experts have suggested that such an order, if proven, could constitute a war crime, specifically a violation of the prohibition against giving "no quarter."

Hegseth has vehemently denied the Washington Post's report, dismissing it as "fake news" and defending the Caribbean operations as "lawful under both U.S. and international law." He asserted that these "highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be 'lethal, kinetic strikes'" against "narco-terrorists." The dual controversies have intensified discussions about the boundaries of military authority, the interpretation of lawful orders, and the accountability of high-ranking officials.