By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has stated that Pete Hegseth denied issuing the order to kill the crew of a boat. Furthermore, the president indicated he would not have authorized a second strike on the vessel after the initial attack, even though two survivors remained. This statement comes after reports surfaced detailing the incident. The President’s comments were released on November 30, 2025 at 8:33 p.m. EST.
Read the original article here
Trump says Hegseth told him he didn’t order killing of boat crew. Alright, so the news has dropped, and the immediate reaction is, well, a mix of disbelief and a weary sense of “here we go again.” Trump, in his inimitable style, is apparently claiming that Pete Hegseth, the man at the center of this controversy, told him he didn’t order the killing of the boat crew. Seems simple enough, right? Except, nothing is ever simple when it comes to this particular political landscape. The first thought that comes to mind is how easily the military is being thrown under the bus, again.
Trump’s statement, if true, puts a rather interesting spin on things. It immediately raises questions about who *did* give the order, and why. The narrative, as it’s being presented, suggests a frantic attempt to distance himself from the situation. It’s hard not to read this as a classic case of damage control. He’s trying to save his own skin by potentially throwing Hegseth under the bus. But, if Hegseth is truly innocent, why the need for this kind of statement? It’s playing hot potato. There’s a video of Trump saying it, answering a direct question. This has been reported all over the world.
Hegseth’s “kill them all” moment has been mentioned. It makes you wonder how deep this goes, and whether the orders came from higher up the chain than previously understood. It is easy to see why they’re so upset about the Congressmen who are reminding troops that they must refuse to follow illegal orders. So, Trump says, Hegseth says. The question is, who do you believe? It’s going to be interesting to see if Hegseth is put under oath. And what about Admiral Bradley? Now, there’s a name that pops up in these kinds of stories.
The core issue here is the allegation that Hegseth ordered the summary execution of civilians, which, if true, amounts to murder one. The ramifications of such an act are enormous. Remember, this isn’t just about political squabbling; it’s about potential war crimes, and the very foundation of military conduct. There’s also the question of jurisdiction – could a U.S. state have the authority to prosecute? And if so, can Trump even pardon him for this? The response so far from certain figures appears to be a mix of denial and deflection, which unfortunately, is nothing new.
Hegseth isn’t a military officer under the UCMJ, but a civilian. Given this, is he going to face war crimes charges? Given all the things Hegseth has done prior to this event, including recalling Generals for face-to-face meetings, giving speeches to troops, and renaming the DoD to DoW, it seems that there’s a good chance he would order the killing of the people on those boats. Trump seems to be demonstrating that he isn’t in direct command of the military. But Trump is technically Commander-in-Chief. This isn’t an impeachable offense?
The question of who’s in charge of the military is crucial. Where are the orders coming from? Why is Trump seemingly partying on a golf course while his underlings are accused of committing acts of war and murder? The whole situation is concerning. Haven’t they been bragging about blowing up boats and how many killed for weeks now? This all screams for an explanation. It does appear that the military’s ethos and goals were death.
The potential for illegal orders to be involved is very real. And the consequences of following such orders are severe, as we’re seeing in this case. The allegations include a war crime. The military often must discharge the poor person who followed the order. What is the real story? There are reports of a horrible name for those injured in warfare being used as a justification for killing them. Mark Kelly’s point about illegal orders is spot on, the people at the bottom of the administrative food chain are going to get thrown to the dogs.
What’s really fascinating here is the almost predictable nature of the response. The “deny the accusations” approach feels like a well-worn playbook, but in this case, it might not be enough. The fact that the order to kill survivors is potentially illegal is going to create interest. The buck stops with the people involved. The need for deniability is very important.
The legal precedents are important. The fact that Nazi Admiral Karl Doenitz was prosecuted and sentenced for ordering that Allied sailors who survived a sinking by Nazi submarines not be rescued is important. It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Trump and his administration’s words are suspect. Trump is being evasive and has lied many times. It could be for the break that Hegseth gave this illegal order.