ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) – Alaska’s Republican senators are responding to allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth committed war crimes in Caribbean boat strikes, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, saying the attacks violate rules of war as Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska seeks facts through congressional oversight.
Sullivan, who sits on the Armed Services Committee investigating the strikes, is seeking answers as Hegseth defended the operations Tuesday, citing “fog of war,” according to the Associated Press.
Rep. Nick Begich, R-Alaska, has not returned multiple attempts for comment Tuesday.
Venezuela boat strikes controversy
The Trump administration has been under fire for its counterdrug campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, which the AP reports the administration has conducted 20 strikes, killing about 80.
A Washington Post report says Hegseth issued a verbal order to “kill everybody” on an alleged drug boat on Sept. 2, which left two people clinging to the vessel after the initial strike. A special operations commander then ordered a second strike to comply with the instructions. The White House has confirmed the follow-up attack.
On Tuesday, Hegseth defended the strikes during a Cabinet meeting, saying he did not see any survivors in the water and citing “fog of war.” He added he “didn’t stick around” for the remainder of the mission but the admiral in charge “made the right call” in ordering the second hit.
Several lawmakers have said Hegseth may have committed a war crime. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, called him ‘a war criminal,’ according to Politico.
Alaska senators respond
Sullivan’s spokesperson told Alaska’s News Source Tuesday the senator is working to get a full set of facts, while Murkowski told MSNOW Monday night the strikes may be considered outside the rules of war.
“I think most would say when you have two individuals that are literally floating in the water, a second order to ‘kill them all’ is not something that we would consider within the rules of war,” she said.
Murkowski has been one of only a few Republican lawmakers outwardly questioning the legality of these actions, posting on social media she wanted to “proceed to debate” a bill which would have required congressional approval for the president to take military action against Venezuela.
“This resolution follows recent reports of U.S. intelligence and military operations in and around Venezuela, which have the potential to disrupt international norms and escalate tensions in the region,” Murkowski said. “After months of lethal strikes in international waters, bringing this resolution to the Senate floor would have allowed Congress to determine whether these actions warrant specific congressional authorization under Article I of the Constitution.”
The senate rejected that bill last month, only two senators dissenting from their party blocking it: Murkowski and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky. Sullivan voted against the bill.
Sullivan’s oversight role
Both the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees have opened investigations into the war crime allegations.
“The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to the circumstances,” senate committee chairs Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi and Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island said in a joint statement, the Hill reports.
Coyne said over email Sullivan is “already working to get the full set of facts related to the boat strikes in Venezuela.”
Leaders in the House Armed Services Committee, which Sullivan is not a part of, told the Hill in late November that it was seeking “full accounting” of the military strike covered in the Washington Post article.
“We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question,” Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, and ranking member Adam Smith, D-Washington, said in a statement.
‘Illegal orders’?
Alaska’s senators also oppose a Pentagon probe into Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, D, who said in a video that military members can refuse illegal orders.
Six Democratic lawmakers said, in a social media video posted mid-November, that members of the military “can refuse illegal orders.”
“Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk,” the lawmakers said, their speeches combined together. “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”
Those six democratic lawmakers, who all served in either the military or intelligence communities, included Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Michigan, Reps. Chris Deluzio, D-Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander, D-New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pennsylvania, and Jason Crow, D-Colorado. The lawmakers did not directly mention what orders were illegal.
The FBI contacted those lawmakers late-November to schedule interviews. Later, the Pentagon announced it is specifically investigating Kelly over possible breaches of military law.
President Trump accused both him and the other lawmakers of “seditious behavior,” on several social media posts, including one which he said was “punishable by DEATH!”
Begich has not spoken on the statements, but Murkowski called the investigation “frivolous” on social media.
“To accuse (Kelly) and other lawmakers of treason and sedition for rightfully pointing out that servicemembers can refuse illegal orders is reckless and flat-out wrong.”
See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com
Copyright 2025 KTUU. All rights reserved.