Fox News analyst Brit Hume suggested Trump administration officials should be held accountable if they ordered the killing of survivors from a drug boat strike
00:56, Thu, Dec 4, 2025 Updated: 01:02, Thu, Dec 4, 2025
Brit Hume took aim at the Trump Administration (Image: FOX News)
During a live Fox News segment, Chief Political Analyst Brit Hume suggested that officials from the Trump administration should be held accountable if it's discovered they ordered the survivors of the boat strike to be killed.
The US launched an attack on a suspected drug boat off the coast of Trinidad on 2 September.
A report by the Washington Post on Friday, 28 November, cited unnamed sources familiar with the situation who claimed that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered everyone on board to be killed. After the initial Navy strike, two survivors were reportedly clinging to the wreckage of the boat.
Admiral Frank Bradley reportedly deemed the pair as legitimate targets and thus ordered Hegseth's directive to be carried out. The Navy then conducted a second strike, which killed the remaining survivors.
The latest news from around the world Invalid email
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
The Trump administration has attacked what it claims to be drug-running boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, but no evidence has been provided to back up these allegations. Experts have stated that even if the targeted boats are transporting illegal drugs, the legality of the strikes remains unclear.
During his appearance on Special Report on Monday, 1 December, Hume clarified that the key issue revolves around the intent behind the second attack. He stated, "That's what it comes down to, is what the intention of the second strike was.
"Was it to obliterate the remainder of the boat that had been hit but not fully destroyed, or was it primarily to eliminate the survivors? If the aim was to eliminate the survivors, that would be a significant issue.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump (Image: AP)
"If they were killed during the destruction of the rest of the boat, if it was sufficiently intact to lead military personnel to believe that the job hadn't been completed, that's a different matter."
Legal experts have suggested that deliberately targeting survivors in a second attack would constitute a severe violation of international law.
Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force attorney and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, explained to PBS, "You can only use lethal force in circumstances where there is an imminent threat - imminent like now - to life or really serious injury."
Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman noted in The New Republic that The Defense Department's Law of War Manual prohibits declaring "no quarter," and forbids conducting operations "on the basis that there shall be no survivors," while also clarifying that "persons placed hors de combat [out of the fight] may not be made the object of attack."