Nicolle Wallace SLAMS White House for Pinning Blame on Military Admiral to Shield Pete Hegseth!

On MSNBC’s Deadline White House, host Nicolle Wallace led a pointed discussion with retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling and retired Rear Admiral Bill Baumgartner about the Trump administration’s handling of a controversial military strike off the coast of Trinidad—one that has drawn intense scrutiny from both sides of the aisle.

The Strike and the Fallout

The debate centers on a recent operation targeting a vessel allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua, a narco-terrorist organization. The administration claims the strike was legal, citing the group’s U.S. designation as justification. Pete Hegseth, former Secretary and Fox News host, appeared on television the morning after, asserting:

“We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented.”

Hegseth’s comments corroborated reporting that he was in the room when the decision was made, raising questions about the chain of command and the legality of the strike.

White House Response: Blame Shifts to Admiral Bradley

Pressed for answers, the White House spokesperson denied that Hegseth gave the order, instead stating:

“Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes… Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a second strike.”

This pivot placed the responsibility squarely on Admiral Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command. General Hertling noted, “It kind of appears like he just got thrown under the bus.”

Legality and Military Ethics Under the Microscope

The panel questioned the legality of the strike, especially the reported second attack on survivors. Admiral Baumgartner explained that, according to the Department of Defense Law of War Manual, firing on shipwrecked survivors is a clear example of an unlawful order.

“There is a section about what to do in case you’re given a clearly unlawful order. And the exact example that’s given is an order to fire on shipwrecked people, people clinging for survival in the water.”

Both experts agreed that the administration’s narrative was inconsistent with military protocol and international law. Baumgartner further cast doubt on the justification for the strike, noting that:

– Eleven people aboard a vessel is inconsistent with major drug smuggling operations.
– The administration’s claim of targeting fentanyl was misleading, as fentanyl is not trafficked from South America.

Political and Legal Ramifications

Wallace and her guests highlighted the potential for congressional inquiry, emphasizing that the facts—video evidence, communications, and military records—would be critical in any investigation. The panel expressed concern that the administration was not providing a transparent legal justification, instead relying on vague assertions of authority.

“Calling somebody a terrorist or a foreign terrorist organization is not fairy dust that immediately makes them a legitimate target,” Baumgartner said.

Supporting the Troops Means Upholding the Law

The discussion concluded with a call for accountability and clarity. Baumgartner urged the administration to “prove it, put your cards on the table, show your evidence,” arguing that true support for the military comes from giving them legal, lawful missions and standing behind those decisions.

Conclusion

Nicolle Wallace’s segment underscored the dangers of political leaders shifting blame onto military officials to shield themselves from controversy. As bipartisan calls for investigation grow, the central question remains: Was the strike lawful, and who should be held accountable for its execution?

In the fog of politics, transparency and adherence to the law are essential—not just for justice, but for the integrity of America’s armed forces.