Listen to the article
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has defended the Trump administration’s controversial military strikes on suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean Sea, asserting that “Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them” in a strongly worded statement posted on social media platform X.
The defense comes in response to reports from The Washington Post and CNN claiming that U.S. military forces conducted a second strike on a suspected drug vessel on September 2 after an initial attack left survivors. According to The Washington Post, the commander overseeing the operation reportedly ordered the follow-up strike to comply with a directive from Hegseth that “everyone must be killed,” as survivors could potentially contact other traffickers for assistance.
Hegseth dismissed these reports as “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting” designed to “discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.” In his statement, he emphasized that the administration’s operations are intended to be “lethal, kinetic strikes” with the explicit goal of stopping drug trafficking, destroying vessels used by narcotics smugglers, and eliminating what he termed “narco-terrorists.”
“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth stated, drawing a sharp contrast with the previous administration’s approach. “The Biden administration preferred the kid gloves approach, allowing millions of people — including dangerous cartels and unvetted Afghans — to flood our communities with drugs and violence. The Trump administration has sealed the border and gone on offense against narco-terrorists.”
The Secretary of War also defended the legality of the operations, stating they are “lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict — and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”
In a separate post on his personal X account, Hegseth took a more direct tone, declaring, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.” Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to a spokesperson for former President Biden but did not include any response.
The maritime operations appear to be part of a broader strategy against drug trafficking. President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that the United States will “very soon” expand operations to target Venezuelan drug traffickers “by land” as well. Trump claimed the administration’s maritime interdiction efforts have already reduced drug trafficking by sea by approximately 85 percent.
“From sending their poisons into the United States, where they kill hundreds of thousands of people a year — but we’re going to take care of that situation,” Trump stated. “We’re already doing a lot… It’s about 85% stopped by sea.”
The president added that while land-based interdiction is “easier,” it represents the next phase in the administration’s anti-drug trafficking strategy: “You probably noticed that now people aren’t wanting to be delivering by sea, and we’ll be starting to stop them by land also. The land is easier, but that’s going to start very soon.”
These aggressive anti-narcotics operations mark a significant shift in U.S. policy regarding drug interdiction. The Department of War confirmed conducting a deadly strike on a vessel allegedly operated by narco-terrorists in the Caribbean Sea on October 24, 2025, part of what appears to be an ongoing campaign that has sparked debate about tactics, legal boundaries, and rules of engagement in combating drug trafficking organizations that the administration has designated as terrorist entities.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
While I understand the desire to disrupt drug trafficking, I’m concerned that lethal strikes could lead to unintended civilian casualties and escalate tensions. We need a more nuanced approach that prioritizes international cooperation, intelligence-gathering, and interdiction efforts over military force.
You raise a fair point. Balancing security needs and human rights is always challenging. Perhaps a thorough review of the rules of engagement and increased transparency around these operations could help address concerns.
While the illegal drug trade is a serious problem, I’m not convinced that lethal military strikes are the best solution. This seems like an overly aggressive and potentially counterproductive approach that could alienate allies and embroil us in further conflict. We need a more nuanced strategy focused on interdiction, disruption, and dismantling trafficking networks.
As a supporter of strong national defense, I can appreciate the administration’s desire to disrupt the illegal drug trade. However, I’m worried that a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy against suspected traffickers could set a dangerous precedent and undermine diplomatic efforts. We should explore all options to address this threat.
Disrupting the flow of illegal drugs is an important national security objective, but I’m skeptical that lethal military strikes are the right tool for the job. This appears to be an escalation that could have unintended consequences and draw us into protracted conflicts. I hope the administration will carefully consider alternative approaches focused on international cooperation, intelligence-sharing, and targeted law enforcement actions.
Aggressive military action against drug traffickers is a complex issue with no easy answers. I’m curious to learn more about the legal and strategic justifications for these strikes, as well as any safeguards in place to prevent civilian harm.
That’s a good question. Increased public scrutiny and oversight of these programs could help ensure they are being conducted in a responsible manner that respects international law and human rights.