When “Kill Them All” Meets “Refuse Illegal Orders”
In the last week we’ve watched two stories collide in a way that should make every American deeply uneasy.
On one side, we have reporting that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly ordered U.S. forces to “kill everybody” on a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. After an initial strike near Trinidad destroyed the vessel on September 2, 2025, two survivors were reportedly seen clinging to the wreckage. According to multiple sources, a second strike was ordered specifically to ensure there were no survivors.

If that reporting is accurate, this isn’t just a “tough on drugs” policy. It is the deliberate killing of people who are hors de combat—no longer actively engaged in hostilities and no longer a threat. Under international humanitarian law, that is the textbook definition of a war crime.
You can read some of the coverage yourself:
Washington Post: “[Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: ‘Kill them all’]” (paywalled for some)
Daily Beast: “[Pentagon Pete in Legal Peril Over ‘Kill Them All’ Orders]” Overview of the strikes: “[2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers]”
Hegseth and the Pentagon have tried to explain this away as debris removal or routine targeting in an anti-narcotics campaign. Members of Congress, military lawyers, and human rights experts aren’t buying it. Some have openly said that, if the facts hold, this was murder ordered from the top.
Maggie Goodlander and the “Illegal Orders” Firestorm

Goodlander and five other Democratic lawmakers — all with military or intelligence backgrounds — released a short video reminding U.S. service members of something that has been drilled into them since basic training: you can, and must, refuse illegal orders.
Their message was simple:
“You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
For stating what every JAG officer teaches and what military law already requires, they’ve been accused of “sedition,” threatened with execution on social media by the President, and now face FBI interviews.
Some key coverage:
NHPR: “[Goodlander stands by video urging service members to refuse illegal orders]”
InDepthNH: “[FBI Investigates Goodlander, 5 Dem Lawmakers For Video Telling Troops Not To Obey Illegal Orders]”
FactCheck.org: “[Experts Say Democratic Video Not ‘Seditious,’ as Trump Claims]”
Legal experts are nearly unanimous: reminding troops not to commit war crimes is not sedition. It’s literally defending the rule of law.
This Is Exactly What They Were Warning About
When Goodlander and others said, “You have no obligation to follow illegal orders,” many on the right screamed that they were undermining the chain of command.
But look at the Hegseth episode and ask: Isn’t this exactly the scenario they were talking about?
If a Cabinet-level official orders a second strike on two people flailing in the water, that’s not a gray area. That’s not a complicated split-second battlefield call. That’s an order to execute survivors — an order that any reasonably trained professional should recognize as unlawful.
If that’s what happened, then it’s not just Pete Hegseth who may face legal jeopardy. The officers who relayed the order and the personnel who pulled the trigger on that second strike may be exposed as well. “I was just following orders” didn’t work at Nuremberg. It doesn’t work under U.S. military law either.
And that is the heart of Goodlander’s message: obeying an illegal order is its own crime.
Were We Ever the “Good Guys”?
Growing up, many of us were taught that the United States were the “good guys.” We believed — or wanted to believe — that our country tried to do the right thing, even when we fell short.
But you can’t square that self-image with:
A Defense Secretary allegedly saying “kill them all” about a group of suspected traffickers on a small boat. A second strike launched to finish off survivors who were clearly no longer a threat. A President who labels lawmakers “traitors” for reminding service members to follow the law, then calls for them to be prosecuted or worse.
If we accept that as normal, we are not the “good guys” anymore. We’re just another country that talks about freedom while quietly giving the green light to kill whoever is in the way.
Here’s what accountability should look like:
A full, independent investigation into the Caribbean strikes, with all relevant intelligence and targeting data made available to Congress and, as much as possible, the public. Clear legal analysis, made public, explaining how this operation was supposedly lawful — or admitting that it was not. Accountability up and down the chain of command if the facts confirm that survivors were deliberately targeted. That includes the person who gave the order and those who carried it out. Protection, not persecution, for lawmakers who are reminding our troops of their duty not to commit war crimes. They are defending the Constitution, not attacking it.
Maggie Goodlander’s point was simple: Service members are not required to surrender their moral judgment, their legal obligations, or their oath to the Constitution just because someone powerful barks an order.
If the reports about Pete Hegseth are accurate, then this is precisely the kind of illegal order our troops should refuse.
If we want to be the “good guys” again — or maybe for the first time — we have to prove it. Not with slogans. Not with flag pins. But with the courage to say:
Killing survivors is wrong. Ordering it is a crime. And no one, no matter how high their office, is above the law.















