Senator Tammy Duckworth’s Recent Gaffe: A Cloud Over War Crimes Accusations
U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) experienced significant embarrassment during a CNN interview this week. She admitted to not having seen the classified footage she used as part of her accusations against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, claiming he should be investigated for war crimes. This lapse, which circulated widely on social media, raised serious questions about the gravity of her claims.
In response to host Anderson Cooper’s query, “Have you seen the classified video?” Duckworth first stated, “I have seen the video.” As Cooper pressed her, she ultimately conceded, “No… I have not seen the actual video.” This exchange quickly became a focal point of criticism, with social media commentators questioning the senator’s grasp of the situation she spoke about so forcefully.
The controversy arises from a U.S. military strike on September 2, 2023, targeting a suspected narcotics trafficking vessel in the Eastern Pacific. That operation resulted in the destruction of the vessel and the death of several individuals. A secondary strike followed, killing the two alleged survivors. The Pentagon initially defended their actions, stating that the survivors had called for reinforcements, positing an ongoing threat. However, subsequent classified briefings revealed that this was inaccurate, indicating that the survivors lacked communication capabilities and were simply trying to flee.
Duckworth, a retired Army helicopter pilot, voiced her concerns during a Senate briefing. She accused the Department of Defense of misleading both Congress and the public. She declared, “This revelation tells us that the DOD has been lying to the American people since September.” Labeling the secondary strike illegal, she asserted it violated international laws of armed conflict and could expose U.S. personnel to prosecution. “If you conduct war crimes, you can actually be caught up in front of the international tribunal,” she cautioned in her remarks to Cooper.
Yet, the gap in Duckworth’s review of the classified footage or related after-action reports undercuts her accusations. During the interview, she stated, “I have requested all the video footage of every mission… all of the strikes, all of the after-action reports and the intelligence debrief that they also do post-mission.” This request for information raises further concerns: how can a legislator credibly accuse high-ranking officials of misconduct without examining the fundamental evidence backing those allegations?
Despite her claims, Duckworth insists that the secondary strike was not legally justified. “You can’t just go in and kill people just because you think that they might conduct future operations against you,” she said. This statement reflects both a misunderstanding of military engagement protocols and a risky rhetorical strategy that could put military personnel in jeopardy. It presents a significant issue in the broader conversation about the legality of military operations targeting fleeing suspects who no longer pose an imminent threat.
The military operation in question was overseen by Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley and authorized during Hegseth’s time as Defense Secretary. The administration framed this operation as part of a comprehensive anti-narcotics strategy aimed at dismantling smuggling networks linked to organized crime.
However, the unfolding controversy has attracted scrutiny from members of both political parties. Lawmakers such as Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) have participated in related briefings, although their public responses have been less vociferous compared to Duckworth’s. This collective attitude reflects a cautious approach amid growing uncertainty over the operation’s legality.
According to CNN sources, the Defense Department informed Congress that the surviving traffickers still posed a “continuing threat” and were communicating with dangerous parties. Yet, classified discussions within the House Intelligence Committee revealed that the survivors had no means of communication and had simply attempted to swim away after the initial strike. One senior source confirmed the survivors posed no ongoing threat.
It is troubling that Duckworth’s claims hinge on her lack of firsthand evidence. Her approach risks endangering U.S. servicemembers who operate under ambiguous legal standards. “This puts our servicemen and women in real danger,” she acknowledged during the interview. Legal experts warn that targeting criteria, especially in counter-narcotics operations, must be clear, or they risk exposing U.S. forces to unwinnable legal battles.
Despite the Pentagon’s insistence that the strikes were lawful, the inconsistencies in the narrative—amplified by leaks and political theatrics—leave Congress and the public grappling with a plethora of unanswered questions. Duckworth’s insistence on accountability may hold significant implications for future military policies and rules of engagement. However, her recent misstep signifies that without reviewing the vital evidence, her calls for action might lack the weight and credibility needed to resonate.
Ultimately, the senator’s public statements left room for skepticism. Criticism regarding her handling of sensitive issues only escalates with her inability to verify the information she referenced in her serious allegations. The fallout from this incident highlights the importance of accountability at all levels, especially in the fraught environment of military operations. Whether this will lead to any substantial changes in military engagement rules remains uncertain, but the implications of her claims—and her failure to substantiate them—are evident.
"*" indicates required fields
