Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin clashed with CNN host Dana Bash on Sunday, Nov. 30, 2025, during a contentious interview about allegations of potential war crimes committed by U.S. military forces in the Caribbean Sea.
The heated exchange centered on reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly ordered troops to kill everyone aboard a suspected drug trafficking vessel, including survivors.
According to a Washington Post report, the Sept. 2, 2025, incident involved two missile strikes on a boat near Trinidad in the Caribbean Sea. Sources with direct knowledge of the operation told the newspaper that Hegseth’s “order was to kill everybody.” The initial strike targeted a suspected drug trafficking boat, killing occupants in the first hit. A second strike allegedly targeted survivors who were clinging to wreckage in the water. The operation resulted in 11 deaths in total.
When Bash questioned Mullin about the reported war crimes during his appearance on State of the Union, the Oklahoma senator expressed skepticism about the accuracy of the reports. “Why would it be true?” Mullin asked, later complaining about the focus on the allegations. He stated that nothing has been verified about the reports and that no one has confirmed their accuracy. The senator characterized the sources as alleged and unverifiable, dismissing the severity of the accusations.
The Washington Post report indicated that more than 80 people have been killed in similar boat operations targeting suspected drug trafficking vessels. The operations are part of what President Donald Trump has characterized as a proactive approach to combating drug trafficking threatening American shores. However, the specific tactics employed in the September incident have raised serious questions about whether military forces crossed legal and ethical boundaries.
Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona took a sharply different stance on the matter. The Democrat called for an inspector general investigation into the allegations and expressed serious concerns about the reported conduct. Kelly stated that going after survivors in the water is clearly unlawful. “If what has been reported is accurate, I’ve got serious concerns about anybody in that chain of command stepping over a line that they should never step over,” Kelly said during his own interview segment on the same program.
The Arizona senator, a Navy veteran, emphasized that the United States maintains high standards of military professionalism that distinguish American forces from those of nations like Russia or Iraq. He indicated that had he received such an order during his military service, he would not have acted on it, underscoring the legal and moral obligations of service members to refuse unlawful commands.
Mullin defended Trump’s approach to drug interdiction operations, stating the president is being proactive in targeting alleged drug operations. However, the senator clarified that Trump has not committed to conducting military strikes inside Venezuela itself, despite speculation about expanded operations. Mullin characterized Trump’s approach as “peace through strength,” arguing that the administration would not wait for threats to reach American shores before taking action.
The exchange grew more heated when Kelly criticized Trump’s recent announcement of a pause on migration from “Third World countries.” Kelly suggested that Trump’s language revealed racial motivations, stating that Trump doesn’t want brown people in the country. Mullin condemned Kelly’s characterization as an accusation of racism, pointing to his own Cherokee heritage and close relationship with the president as evidence contradicting Kelly’s assertion.
Adding another layer of controversy to the discussion of drug policy, Mullin also defended Trump’s decision to pardon former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez. Hernandez was convicted in March 2024 on drug trafficking charges and sentenced to 45 years in prison for conspiring to import cocaine into the United States. The senator suggested there was probably good faith being extended in the pardon decision, though he acknowledged not being involved in conversations between Trump and Honduran leadership.
The war crimes allegations have sparked debate about the boundaries of military operations against drug trafficking organizations. Under international humanitarian law, combatants who surrender or are incapacitated generally cannot be deliberately targeted. The reported second strike against survivors in the water would potentially violate these protections if the allegations prove accurate.
The Pentagon has not issued an official statement confirming or denying the specific details reported by the Washington Post. The lack of official response has left questions unanswered about the rules of engagement for these operations and whether proper legal review occurred before strikes were authorized. Kelly’s call for an inspector general investigation represents the first formal request for accountability regarding the incident.
The controversy has drawn responses from multiple levels of the Trump administration. President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he “wouldn’t have wanted a second strike” and claimed Defense Secretary Hegseth told him the second strike “didn’t happen” as described in media reports. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt subsequently stated that the strikes were actually ordered by Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, rather than by Hegseth directly. Leavitt maintained that the strikes were conducted in “self-defense” in international waters and “in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
Despite these defenses, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have launched bipartisan inquiries into the incident, marking a rare instance of congressional Republicans joining Democrats in seeking accountability for actions taken by the Trump administration.
The controversy comes as the Trump administration has emphasized aggressive action against drug trafficking as a national security priority. The debate over these operations highlights ongoing tensions between security objectives and adherence to legal and ethical standards governing military conduct, even when targeting criminal organizations rather than traditional military adversaries.
