Press Sec. ERUPTS As Reporters REFUSE To Accept Her Scripted Lines!
💣 The Cowardice of Command: Pete Hegseth’s Blame-Shifting and the Lawless Pursuit of “No Survivors”
The latest saga emanating from the Trump administration—the targeted sinking of a so-called “narco-terrorist” boat and the subsequent alleged execution of its survivors—has quickly devolved into a textbook study of political cowardice and legal cynicism. As the walls of accountability close in, the administration’s strategy is clear: evade responsibility, invent legal authority, and, most disgracefully, throw a decorated military officer under the bus.
The incident, which saw a first kinetic strike followed by a second, lethal engagement that ensured “no survivors,” has forced the administration into a bizarre and indefensible public relations posture. Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt, reading a statement with the robotic adherence of someone terrified to deviate, attempted to shift the entire burden of the decision onto Admiral Frank Bradley. According to her statement, Bradley “worked well within his authority and the law” to ensure “the boat was totally destroyed and the threat… was eliminated.”
The deliberate, repetitive nature of the non-answers is an insult to common sense. When reporters rightly pressed on the ethical and legal implications of the second strike—the one allegedly aimed at two survivors clinging to the wreckage—Leavitt’s script failed entirely. The central question remains: what “imminent threat” did two shipwrecked individuals, clinging to debris in international waters, pose that required their summary execution? Leavitt’s only defense was to reiterate that Bradley’s actions ensured the “threat… was eliminated,” a phrase that effectively confirms the goal was not capture, but termination.
The Legal Fantasy of Self-Authored Authority
The administration’s defense is not rooted in existing military doctrine or international law; it is a fantasy of self-authored authority. They repeatedly assert that President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth possess the inherent “authority to kill” anyone deemed a “narco-terrorist” trafficking drugs towards the US, regardless of the laws of war or due process.
This is the political equivalent of a common criminal claiming “the right to steal cars” simply because they desire the vehicle. Asserting a right to violate the rules of armed conflict does not, in fact, make the violation lawful.
Legal experts, most notably Ryan Goodman, a former general counsel in the Department of Defense, have dissected this defense and found it to be patently absurd. Goodman points out that the US military’s own Law of War Manual explicitly holds that firing on shipwrecked individuals is the textbook example of a clearly illegal order—a war crime. The military is not permitted to destroy non-combatants, even if they were formerly a threat, once they are disabled and pose no immediate danger.
This leaves Secretary Hegseth in an excruciating dilemma:
Worst Case Scenario: Hegseth directly ordered Admiral Bradley to “ensure no survivors,” as reported by major news outlets. This is a direct, undeniable order to commit a war crime.
Best Case Scenario: Hegseth gave a vague instruction—”make sure the threat is eliminated”—which Bradley interpreted to mean kill everyone. Even under this reading, Hegseth remains responsible for issuing a dangerously ambiguous and inherently illegal order that led to a war crime.
Either way, the blood is on the Secretary of War’s hands.
Hegseth’s Cowardly Betrayal
The administration’s attempt to escape culpability has created a stunning spectacle of betrayal. While Caroline Leavitt was publicly hanging Admiral Bradley out to dry, Secretary Hegseth issued a contradictory, bombastic statement claiming, “Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional and has my 100% support.”
This is the ultimate political double-cross: a performance of loyalty that simultaneously serves as a deflection of blame. Hegseth is attempting to wrap Bradley in a flag of “American hero” status while forcing him to carry the bag for an alleged war crime.
Even within the ranks of Fox News commentators, who usually act as the administration’s shield, the hypocrisy was too thick to ignore. Longtime commentator Brit Hume openly called out Hegseth, describing the statement as a masterclass in “how to point the finger at someone while pretending to support them.”
This is the defining characteristic of this administration: a profound, moral cowardice. They boast loudly about their supposed strength and their willingness to be “bloodthirsty,” but the moment the action meets the law, they retreat, putting lower-ranking personnel in front of them to shield themselves from responsibility.
The men and women serving in uniform, whom Hegseth patronizingly thanked on a flight deck with his rehearsed, manufactured sincerity, are now watching their leader prove himself a weak, minuscule individual willing to sacrifice one of their own to preserve his political standing. The question for Admiral Bradley, and every officer serving under Hegseth, is clear: when the law is broken and the inevitable investigation begins, will you choose to follow an unlawful order from a coward who will inevitably betray you, or will you fulfill your solemn duty to refuse it? The consequences of that decision are now being tragically exposed in the open.
