Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing escalating political and legal pressure after revealing reports showed he privately urged a senior naval commander to 'move out fast' during a period of intensifying military operations now under investigation for alleged unlawful killings.
Admiral Alvin Holsey, who led US Southern Command (Southcom), retired early following what officials describe as months of friction with Hegseth, coinciding with rising concerns over the Pentagon's expanding maritime campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
With claims of unlawful strikes, alleged instructions to leave no survivors and a growing international legal backlash, Operation Southern Spear has entered a critical moment for US accountability and global scrutiny.
Secretary's Ultimatum And Sudden Leadership Shake-Up
According to senior Pentagon officials cited by The Wall Street Journal, Hegseth told Admiral Holsey that when orders are issued, 'you move out fast and don't ask questions'. Not long after, he pressed Holsey to step aside, prompting the admiral's early retirement.
Holsey's departure, announced in October and effective in December, came amid a surge of lethal strikes targeting what the administration has labelled 'narco-terrorist' vessels.
The Pentagon insists the operations underwent legal vetting and adhered to command structures. Spokespeople have repeatedly stressed that decisions, including a controversial follow-up strike, were authorised by the US Special Operations Command.
Yet the internal tensions, sudden leadership transition and timing of the operations have fuelled concerns in Congress and among legal experts over whether military officials were pressured to accelerate or expand the campaign.
The September Strike And The 'Double Tap' Allegation
The most contentious episode occurred on 2 September. Reporting from The Washington Post and other outlets claims a US strike destroyed a suspected drug-trafficking vessel, leaving at least two survivors in the water. A second strike was then reportedly ordered, killing the individuals who remained alive.
Two individuals with direct knowledge told The Washington Post that a verbal directive to 'kill everybody' had been issued during planning. Hegseth has denied the allegation, and Pentagon officials maintain that the follow-up strike was lawful and conducted under existing authorities.
However, international law specialists warn that if survivors were intentionally targeted after no longer posing a threat, the action could breach core protections for persons hors de combat. Legal scholars note that such conduct could expose commanders and policymakers to potential criminal liability under both domestic and international frameworks.
Mounting Congressional and Legal Pushback
Congressional committees in both chambers have opened inquiries, demanding operational documents, mission briefings and the declassification of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that the administration has relied upon to justify the strikes.
Senate Democrats argue that public release is essential for democratic oversight, warning that classified legal interpretations cannot be used to justify potentially unlawful uses of force.
Representative Bobby Scott and other lawmakers have raised concerns that the operations may violate the War Powers Resolution and international law. Meanwhile, families of alleged victims have begun pursuing international channels.
A petition filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights claims a Colombian fisherman, Alejandro Carranza Medina, died in a 15 September strike, describing the incident as an extrajudicial killing and naming Hegseth in the complaint.
A Growing Diplomatic And Accountability Crisis
The petition marks the first international human-rights challenge directly tied to Operation Southern Spear and opens the door to broader diplomatic scrutiny across Latin America.
Rights groups say the deaths raise systemic questions about the transparency of US counter-narcotics operations and the legal guidance governing lethal maritime strikes.
As Congressional investigations advance, international petitions gain traction, and the media intensifies its scrutiny, pressure is mounting for the administration to clarify who authorised the strikes and whether they complied with US and international obligations.
