Sen. Mark Kelly Condemns War Secretary Hegseth Over Caribbean Strike That Killed Survivors
Senator Mark Kelly’s sharp criticism of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth highlights a growing concern over military conduct in U.S. operations abroad. Kelly condemned Hegseth after reports emerged that U.S. forces purposely targeted survivors in the water following an airstrike on a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. This incident, which took place on September 2, 2025, has triggered a political and legal maelstrom in Washington.
The controversy escalated this week when Hegseth shared a video on social media featuring animated turtles equipped with rocket-propelled grenades attacking a drug boat. While some perceived the video as a humorous take on the U.S. effort against drug trafficking, Kelly reacted with disbelief. “This is NOT a serious person! He should’ve been fired,” he stated during a CNN appearance, revealing deep frustration with Hegseth’s portrayal of military operations.
The uproar was fueled further by a viral tweet accusing Kelly and other Democrats of siding with terrorists—a strong claim that added fuel to the fire. The tweet aggressively labeled Kelly as “seditious,” redirecting attention back to the gravity of the military actions conducted under Hegseth’s directive.
Reports from reputable sources, such as The Washington Post and CNN, detail that a Navy SEAL team undertook an operation against a vessel linked to the Cartel de los Soles, a drug organization connected to the Venezuelan government. Following the initial attack, which resulted in several deaths, a second assault explicitly targeted those clinging to the wreckage in the water, a tactic described as “double tap.” Such actions draw serious accusations of war crimes, raising questions about the legality of U.S. military operations.
A senior official in American special operations disclosed to The Washington Post that Hegseth had expressly ordered to “kill everybody” on board the vessel. If that order is confirmed, it would violate not just military codes but also international humanitarian laws designed to protect those who are incapacitated in combat situations.
In response, Kelly, a Navy veteran himself, expressed serious concerns. “Going after survivors in the water—that is clearly not lawful,” he said, stressing the importance of lawful conduct in military operations. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) echoed those concerns on CBS, noting, “This rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true.” Their statements emphasize a rising bipartisan alarm about military accountability in the face of aggressive tactics.
The military action was part of a broader campaign initiated during the Trump administration aimed at dismantling narcotics trafficking linked to the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Under this renewed strategy, U.S. military actions in the region have resulted in over 80 fatalities in the past year alone, drawing scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum.
In defense of the operation, Hegseth contended that the strikes were legal and necessary. “These highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be lethal,” he explained. “The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people.” With his bold assertion, he argued that robust military action is warranted to combat the threat posed by drugs to American society.
Despite his defense, the pressure on Hegseth has not subsided. A bipartisan group from the Senate Armed Services Committee, including Kelly, Wicker, and Chair Jack Reed, has launched an investigation to clarify the orders given during these strikes. Kelly affirmed, “We’re going to put these folks under oath. And we’re going to find out what happened. And then, there needs to be accountability.” The promise of accountability underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the potential implications for military conduct.
As scrutiny mounts, Hegseth dismissed the accusations, calling media reports “fabricated” and criticizing past administrations for ineffectiveness. He contrasted the Biden administration’s “kid gloves approach” with his own more aggressive stance, arguing for the necessity of tough tactics against drug traffickers. However, his approach raises questions about adherence to the rule of law in military operations.
President Trump also weighed in through social media, explicitly warning about the airspace surrounding Venezuela as a high-stakes area ripe for military intervention. His statements frame the ongoing operations within a broader narrative of national security and counter-terrorism.
As discussions continue, bipartisan leaders are pressing for answers, with rising calls for oversight and accountability. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) stated, “If this reporting is accurate, Secretary Hegseth ordered a murder and must be held accountable.” Criticism toward Hegseth isn’t limited to Democrats; concerns regarding the legality of his directives have been articulated across party lines.
Legal experts have acknowledged that prosecuting Hegseth’s directives could prove complex without concrete evidence. Nevertheless, ongoing investigations are expected to yield documents and testimony that might shed light on the events surrounding the strike. The ramifications of this incident extend beyond the halls of Congress; it impacts military personnel in the field, complicating the reception of orders under heightened scrutiny.
As the future of Secretary Hegseth hangs in the balance, the increasing division along party lines reveals deeper concerns about the legality and limits of military power in the fight against drug trafficking. The anticipated Senate hearings promise to serve as a critical juncture in understanding the balance of military engagement and adherence to established legal standards. It’s a test not only of Hegseth’s leadership but also of broader U.S. military ethics and accountability.
"*" indicates required fields
