The National Interest - Venezuela Boatstrikes Raise Legal Problems for the Entire US Military - December 9, 2025 - By: Ramon Marks

 The National Interest 

Venezuela Boatstrikes Raise Legal Problems for the Entire US Military

December 9, 2025

By: Ramon Marks

No modern military chain of command can survive if each rank begins to question the legality of their orders.

On September 2, Special Operations Command launched a drone strike against drug boat runners in the Caribbean. After two strikes, the boat was sunk with no survivors. 

Before that attack was publicly reported, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and other members of Congress released a video on November 18, reminding service members that they are not obliged to execute “illegal orders.” At the time, it was unclear why the senator and his colleagues chose this particular moment to remind troops of that rule.

About 10 days later, the likely rationale became clearer: on November 28, The Washington Post broke the story about the September 2 attack. Citing unnamed sources, it alleged that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had issued orders to the Special Operations Command to “leave no survivors” during the attack.

The accusation was profoundly serious. If true, it meant that the secretary’s order was a war crime. The US Department of Defense Law of War manual, Section 5.4.7, could not be clearer: “[i]t is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.” The Beltway hunt was on with Secretary Hegseth as the target.

Since the story first came out, more unconfirmed details have emerged in media coverage. It is reported that the second strike was ordered more than 40 minutes after the first. Importantly, it now appears that it was Admiral Frank Bradley, the current Combatant Commander of Special Operations Command, who ordered the second strike, not Secretary Hegseth. Inevitably, pundits and politicians have begun second-guessing whether the admiral made the right judgment call. 

Before making his decision, the admiral apparently consulted with his JAG lawyer about whether the damaged boat could be legally considered a “shipwreck.” If it were, the DOD Law of War Manual, Sections 5.9.4 and 18.3.2, forbade any further strikes. The legal advice said to have been given was that the target was not a “shipwreck.” The admiral then made his decision and ordered the second strike—no doubt believing that his decision was lawful.

Advice of counsel does not automatically immunize or protect Admiral Bradley from prosecution or career sanction under Section 18.23.3 of DOD’s Law of War Manual. If government decision makers or prosecutors decided that the second strike was, in fact, illegal, he could be legally pursued regardless of the lawyer’s advice. At best, a JAG lawyer’s opinion could be evidence of an extenuating circumstance that creates possible, but not absolute, grounds for non-prosecution, or a lower degree of sanction or punishment. The reality is that, depending on how the politics continue to develop, the admiral’s distinguished career could be over, regardless of military law considerations.

So far missed in this controversy is an even more ominous consideration. If Admiral Bradley were prosecuted for issuing an illegal order, the matter does not necessarily stop there. Every single officer and service member down the chain of command from Admiral Bradley, who obeyed and helped to implement or carry out the purportedly illegal order, could face legal risk and punishment for a war crime, as well. Admiral Bradley would not be the only one facing possible prosecution. 

Since the infamous Nuremberg trials, the “only following orders” defense gives no protection from prosecution for committing war crimes. Section 18 of DOD’s Law of War Manual makes that point clear. Those military personnel who played any role in obeying and carrying out Admiral Bradley’s order could face accountability, like him, for a war crime. The damage to the morale and capabilities of the entire Special Operations Command could be irreparable if events continue to move in that legal direction, making difficult judgment calls on September 2.

Even if no one, including the admiral, suffers negative career consequences for the September 2 strikes, the controversy will nonetheless have concerning implications for the good order and discipline of the entire military. Admiral Bradley made a tough call, and he is paying the Beltway price. Those watching in the military at every rank, from the lowest to the highest, could well be taking the wrong lesson.

In Senator Mark Kelly’s video, he correctly reminded service members that they have no duty to obey unlawful orders. While true, that message can be misconstrued to suggest that a serving member must individually decide if an order is lawful. If that kind of subjective standard becomes embedded in the ranks, the US military will be in trouble. It cannot effectively function if every service person considers it an obligation to decide personally if an order is legal before carrying it out. 

Some commands are blatantly illegal, such as orders to kill or torture a prisoner of war. But when an order is given, there is simply no room for everyone at every level of rank down the line to feel a moral or legal responsibility to stop and second-guess the lawfulness of that directive. No military organization can effectively function under such a standard. Hopefully, lessons learned from the September 2 boat strikes will not, as well, lead to collateral damage to the good order, efficiency, and discipline of the entire US military.

About the Author: Ramon Marks

Ramon Marks is a retired international lawyer and a regular contributor to The National Interest. During his legal career he represented both foreign governments and multinationals on trade and sanctions law matters, including testimony to Congress on export controls and related national security issues.

Image: Bumble Dee / Shutterstock.com.

Related Articles

Russian nuclear missile on parade in Moscow.

Land WarfareNuclear Warfare

The Nuclear Dimension of a Ukrainian Peace Settlement

Ending the Ukraine War will ultimately require some US-Russia nuclear arms agreement. As the United States, Russia, Ukraine, and most of Europe discuss a peace agreement for the war in…

Lawrence J. KorbStephen Cimbala December 13, 2025

President Donald Trump appears in the Rose Garden.

Nuclear Proliferation

What Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy Missed

The administration is courting serious risks to global stability by neglecting any strategy around nuclear proliferation.

Henry Sokolski December 12, 2025

Russian president Vladimir Putin addresses press conference.

Land Warfare

Russia Doesn’t Want “Competitive Coexistence”

Vladimir Putin has made it very clear that he is not interested in a merely “competitive” relationship with the West.

Alexander J. Motyl December 11, 2025