Democratic Senator Says 'It's Very Possible There Was a War Crime Committed' in September Drug-Boat Strike

"Of course, for it to be a war crime, you have to accept the Trump administration's whole construct here ... which is we're in armed conflict, at war with this particular -- with the drug gangs. Of course, they've never presented the public with the information they've got here. If that theory is wrong, then it's plain murder"

His comments followed reporting by The Washington Post that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a verbal order to kill everyone on board the vessel before the Sept. 2 operation. The report said a second strike was carried out to finish off two survivors.

Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the defense secretary "should be held accountable for giving those kind of orders," adding, "They have concocted this ridiculous legal theory."

Hegseth defended the missions on X, saying they are intended to be "lethal, kinetic strikes" that "destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people." Hegseth also added that:

"as usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland"

President Donald Trump said Sunday that he believes Hegseth's denial of the allegations, while also saying, "we'll look into it" and that he would not have supported a second strike.

Lawmakers in both parties have said they are seeking additional information. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said on the aforementioned ABC News program that if the allegations are accurate, "that is a violation of the law of war," adding that it is "hard to believe that two people on a raft... would pose an imminent threat."

Van Hollen has been a frequent critic of the administration's approach to Venezuela. Two weeks ago he joined more than 100 members of Congress in an amicus brief opposing the administration's decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans in the United States, arguing that the action contradicts congressional intent and bipartisan precedent.