Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, reportedly stepped before reporters Thursday to address explosive allegations published by The Washington Post concerning Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
According to the Post, citing two unnamed individuals, Hegseth allegedly issued a “kill them all” order in connection with a September 2 strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel off the coast of Trinidad. But after a closed briefing with Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, Himes told reporters that the admiral denied the claims outright.
“The Admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill them all order and that there was not an order to grant no quarter,” Himes said, attempting to push back against the media narrative generated by the report. T
The Post’s allegations suggested a dramatic sequence: an initial order from Hegseth to eliminate everyone aboard, followed by a strike, and then a second directive from Bradley to neutralize two remaining survivors whom he reportedly viewed as legitimate threats.
The accusations carry major implications, not only for the Pentagon but also for the Biden-era debate over accountability, rules of engagement, and how the United States conducts counter-narcotics operations overseas.
Although Himes is a Democrat often critical of Republican-led defense initiatives, his public statement defending the absence of such an order underscores the seriousness of the report and the political stakes surrounding it.
Himes did acknowledge that the strike footage, which he viewed during the briefing, left him deeply troubled. “Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way,” he said, describing the state of the damaged vessel and its surviving occupants.
He warned that the public, once the video is eventually released, may interpret the scene in a way that raises uncomfortable questions about the conduct of U.S. forces. “People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows — if you don’t have the broader context — an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
That comment highlights a growing tension between operational realities and public perception in an era when military actions are increasingly scrutinized through political and media filters.
The operation occurred amid a wider U.S. effort to target suspected drug-trafficking networks, actions that have drawn skepticism from some lawmakers concerned about mission creep and legal clarity surrounding military strikes on non-state actors.
Despite the Post’s reliance on anonymous sources, Himes’ account of the briefing with Bradley suggests House members were eager to determine whether the allegations reflected factual misconduct or a misinterpretation of battlefield decisions made under pressure.
Bradley, according to Himes, defended his actions and rejected the notion that he or the secretary had issued blanket orders incompatible with U.S. military standards or the laws of armed conflict.
The matter now places a spotlight on both the Pentagon’s transparency and the mainstream media’s reliance on unnamed sources in reporting on sensitive national security issues. As more details emerge, lawmakers will likely continue pressing for clarity, while the administration works to defend its counter-narcotics strategy and the officials executing it.
[READ MORE: Trump Treasury Secretary Blasts New York Times at Its Own Summit: “Fever Swamp” That Helped Cover Up Biden’s Decline]
