[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 202 (Wednesday, December 3, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8490-S8491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CARIBBEAN BOAT STRIKE

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter of grave 
concern regarding the Trump administration's military operations in 
South and Central America and specifically the September 2 strike on a 
suspected drug vessel that has now been the subject of deeply troubling 
press reporting.
  The facts as we understand them are these: On September 2, U.S. 
forces conducted a strike on a vessel in the Caribbean. From his own 
public statements, we know that Secretary Hegseth authorized and 
oversaw the strike. According to press reports, the initial strike left 
survivors in the water, clinging to the wreckage. Then U.S. forces 
carried out a second strike on the vessel, which killed the survivors.
  Initially, as he often does, the Secretary of Defense and his office 
denied the reporting when it broke last weekend. But then, on Monday, 
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that, in fact, 
Secretary Hegseth did authorize these strikes and that Admiral Bradley, 
the operational commander, did order a second strike. The White House 
has admitted what the Secretary denied, and we cannot ignore what that 
means.
  The Department of Defense's Law of War Manual states that members of 
the Armed Forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders, 
including law of war violations. It even provides a definition and an 
example to avoid confusion:

       For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be 
     clearly illegal.

  This is not a complex legal theory. This is not a gray area. The 
manual addresses this exact situation with crystal clarity. Orders to 
fire upon the shipwrecked are clearly illegal, and this principle has 
been long ingrained in the Department of Defense and the Navy.
  Multiple legal experts, including former Judge Advocates General, 
have stated that if this reporting is accurate, this strike appears to 
constitute a war crime. Indeed, many of my Republican colleagues have 
joined Democrats in recognizing that the reported facts of this strike 
would be clearly illegal. Yet, in his own words yesterday, the 
Secretary of Defense claimed that the second strike was the ``correct 
decision.'' This by itself is an alarming admission.
  But I am, frankly, not surprised by the Secretary's statements. For 
years, he has expressed contempt for the law of armed conflict and has 
championed servicemembers convicted of war crimes. During the first 
Trump administration, he lobbied for the pardoning of several military 
personnel who were turned in by their own teammates for war crimes as 
well as military contractors convicted of killing 14 Iraqi civilians. 
He has also called for reinstating waterboarding and other forms of 
torture.
  In his book ``The War on Warriors,'' he wrote:

       Should we follow the Geneva Conventions?. . . . If our 
     warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to 
     sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel 
     better about themselves, aren't we just better off in winning 
     our wars according to our own rules?

  Since then, Secretary Hegseth has acted exactly how we might expect. 
In October, at Quantico, he told hundreds of generals and admirals:

       Don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the 
     hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and 
     kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct 
     and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, 
     maximum lethality and authority for warfighters.

  He then gave them an ultimatum:

       If the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, 
     then you should do the honorable thing and resign.

  Secretary Hegseth demands military leaders conform to his 
interpretation of the law or be dismissed. This is profoundly 
dangerous. It contradicts the ethic and the ethos of the American 
military that is sworn to uphold the Constitution, sworn to obey the 
laws of armed conflict. That dedication is to ensure that when our 
personnel are disabled in the water, when they are prisoners of war, 
they are treated with the legal requirements of the Geneva Convention 
and of other legal constraints. If we kill people with impunity, how 
can we object to the same behavior from our opponents?

  Now, when he first came to the Department of Defense, he dismissed 
the Judge Advocates General of each service--the TJAGs. These are 
officers with more than 30 years of apolitical service providing legal 
oversight on military justice, operational law, and adherence to the 
law of armed conflict. Without these decades of military experience, 
the services seem to be losing their way and not supporting the men and 
women in uniform as these men and women deserve.
  When this latest story came to light, the Secretary immediately began 
pointing the finger at others. He and the White House have repeatedly 
attempted to place responsibility for the September 2 strike squarely 
on Admiral Bradley's shoulders.
  I served in the Army on Active Duty for 12 years, and one of the 
first and most important lessons I learned is that a military leader 
can delegate authority, but you can never delegate responsibility. You 
give the orders. You own the results. Every officer knows this, but 
Secretary Hegseth is once

[[Page S8491]]

again giving orders and rejecting responsibility when bad results come 
in. I can guarantee that every combat leader under his command is 
taking careful note of his behavior. It is not the behavior they have 
dedicated their lives to perform.
  More broadly, what troubles me most is the administration's refusal 
to explain itself to Congress and the American people. This suggests 
they know this operation and the tortured legal rationale they use to 
justify it cannot withstand scrutiny.
  Chairman Wicker--and I applaud him for his very forceful 
determination to investigate this situation. We both have formally 
requested the Executive orders that guide these operations and the 
full, unedited videos and audio from each strike. We have asked for the 
intelligence that identified these vessels as legitimate targets. We 
have asked for the rules of engagement governing these operations. We 
have asked for casualty assessments and the criteria used to 
distinguish combatants from civilians. And my Democratic colleagues and 
I have asked that the legal documents justifying these operations be 
declassified and shared with the public.
  These are fundamental questions that any lawful military operation 
should be able to answer clearly and definitively. These are not 
courtesy requests; they are statutory requirements under multiple laws, 
including the War Powers Resolution and several National Defense 
Authorization Acts. But after 3 months of asking for material that 
legally should have been provided to us promptly, the Pentagon has 
provided only limited information while it has refused to answer basic 
questions about even that limited material.
  Legal experts across the political spectrum have nearly unanimously 
denounced these operations as unlawful. Yet, rather than provide 
justification, the administration withholds information.
  If this operation serves vital American interests, if it can achieve 
its stated objectives, and if it is legal under domestic and 
international law, then why won't they defend it before Congress and 
the American people? The stonewalling suggests they lack genuine 
answers. The secrecy suggests they know that this operation does not 
make sense, is not good policy, and, indeed, is quite illegal in many 
respects.
  Now, Mr. Hegseth's credibility is not the exclusive issue here--the 
issue is the law--but his repeated dishonesty makes oversight even more 
essential. I am calling for immediate action.
  First, the Department of Defense must initiate an investigation into 
the September 2 incident. This is standard military practice for 
accountability and establishing lessons learned. The investigation must 
include a thorough review of the orders and chain of command decisions. 
This is how we ensure procedures were followed and prevent future 
violations.
  Second, the Pentagon must declassify and publish the full, unedited 
video of the September 2 strike. If they followed the laws of war, it 
will be clear for all of us to see. If they have nothing to hide, 
transparency would be welcomed and obvious. The American people deserve 
to see what is being done in their name, and I can only say their 
reluctance to do so suggests that they are reluctant for a reason. 
These films could be highly incriminating. The American people deserve 
to see them.
  Third, the White House must declassify the Department of Justice's 
Office of Legal Counsel's opinion underpinning their legal argument for 
this operation. There is no reason for this document to remain hidden. 
The American people deserve to know why this administration believes it 
has a license to kill in their name and what parameters govern that 
authority. If the legal reasoning is sound, it should withstand public 
scrutiny. If it cannot, then these operations should not continue.
  These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic requirements of 
democratic accountability and the rule of law.
  I have spoken with General Caine, and I will speak with Admiral 
Bradley later this week. It is imperative that the military personnel 
involved be truthful and forthright. The truth will come out--maybe not 
this week or next week. But it will come out. It always does.
  The problem, regrettably, is that I do not believe Mr. Hegseth. He 
has lied repeatedly about this operation and others, claiming news 
stories are false, only to be contradicted by the White House or other 
sources. His argument boils down to: Take him at his word; trust him. 
But, frankly, I cannot--not when the law is this clear, not when the 
stakes are this high.
  Shamelessly violating the laws of armed conflict puts our own service 
men and women at risk of receiving the same treatment in the future by 
our adversaries.
  My colleagues and I are actively gathering more information about the 
September 2 strike. If the reported details are true, they represent a 
grave breach of the laws of war. There must be bipartisan oversight 
actions taken, committed to facts, truth, and the law above all else.
  Chairman Wicker and I have given the Department more than enough time 
to respond in good faith to reasonable questions. Secretary Hegseth has 
refused. But the law demands better. The American people deserve 
better. And, most importantly, our servicemembers deserve better.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________