Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth may have to confront his own generals and admirals, who reportedly have documentary evidence about a deadly strike that has alarmed even seasoned national security experts.
The controversy centers around an alleged U.S. missile strike on a suspected drug-running boat in the Caribbean. This was followed by a second strike that reportedly killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage. Lawmakers from both parties are now openly discussing a full inquiry into whether Hegseth, or anyone above the targeting cell, ordered an illegal attack on defenseless people.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board warned that if Congress investigates, Hegseth won’t be the only one in the spotlight. They stated, “If Mr. Hegseth is right, then the factual record will support him.” They emphasized that there are several layers of bureaucracy between the Secretary of Defense and the launch of a missile. Senior officers likely documented their advice and the directions they received to protect themselves.
This notion, that Pentagon leaders may have safeguarded their interests, quickly spread to cable news. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough emphasized the “receipts” comment. He suggested that the real conflict might not be between Hegseth and Congress but rather between Hegseth and his own command structure.
Scarborough pointed out the sudden resignation of Admiral Alvin Holsey, the former head of U.S. Southern Command, responsible for military operations in the Caribbean and South America. Holsey left shortly after the drug boat operations began. Reports indicate he resigned in frustration over how the operations were managed.
“Think about how chilling this is for Pete Hegseth,” Scarborough said, noting that Holsey reportedly quit due to the incident. He reflected on concerns that senior officers may have documented every directive from above. Scarborough stated, “These admirals, these officers, they have receipts,” and they are unlikely to enter a congressional hearing without evidence.
“They aren’t going to do this without making sure they have proof of authority sent by Pete Hegseth,” he added. Scarborough predicted a situation where the secretary tries to shift blame down the chain, only to face a wall of emails, memos, and legal guidance that give a different account.
Scarborough argued this gives insight into why the White House changed its stance. Initially dismissing the story and allowing Hegseth to label it as “lefty fake news,” the administration later acknowledged that a second strike happened and claimed it was lawful under the rules of engagement.
Lawmakers are already preparing questions behind the scenes. Who ordered the follow-up strike, and under what legal authority? What did military lawyers advise at the time? Did anyone object? Most importantly, did Hegseth explicitly allow or promote a more aggressive approach that crossed the line between targeting combatants and attacking the wounded?
The Pentagon has promised to cooperate with any review while noting that troops acted according to established rules against armed drug traffickers at sea. However, a notable op-ed urging Congress to summon Hegseth under oath and increasing talk that several flag officers have documented their actions has changed the situation.
