Reed EXPOSES Hegseth’s Lies: “This Operation Was Illegal.
The political world was shaken this week after Senator Jack Reed, a West Point graduate, former Army Ranger, and longtime chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, delivered one of the most direct and consequential speeches ever aimed at a sitting Secretary of Defense. In calm but devastating detail, Reed outlined what he described as profoundly troubling inconsistencies, potential legal violations, and an alarming refusal to cooperate with congressional oversight from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. His remarks were not the typical partisan exchange that Washington has grown accustomed to. Instead, they resembled a warning from a senior statesman who has spent decades studying military law, military ethics, and the perilous consequences of ignoring both. Reed’s argument was clear: if reports surrounding the September 2nd strike in the Caribbean are accurate, the United States may have carried out an operation that violated the law of armed conflict, and senior officials may have attempted to conceal the truth.
In the speech, Reed focused on allegations first raised in press reports detailing a U.S. military strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean. According to those reports, the initial strike disabled the vessel, leaving several individuals alive in the water, clinging to the debris. Later, U.S. forces allegedly launched a second strike that killed those survivors. Reed emphasized that Secretary Hegseth first denied these allegations outright, even dismissing the reporting as false. However, the White House later contradicted him. The administration admitted not only that the strike took place but that Hegseth personally authorized the operation. Reed highlighted the severity of this shift. In his view, the issue was no longer about disputed details or political differences. It had become a matter of whether the United States had violated international law—and whether its own defense secretary was telling the truth.
What made Reed’s speech especially explosive was how explicitly he tied the reported conduct to the Pentagon’s own law of war manual. Reed cited an unambiguous passage stating that service members must refuse orders to carry out clearly illegal actions, and the manual even provides an example for absolute clarity: “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.” The senator pointed out that this is not an obscure or debatable interpretation. Instead, it is a black-and-white rule enshrined in decades of U.S. military doctrine, shaped by the Geneva Conventions, and designed to protect both enemy combatants and American service members. If survivors were indeed targeted while shipwrecked, Reed argued, it would represent what legal scholars have described as a potential war crime. Yet as he noted repeatedly, Secretary Hegseth stood by the strike, with the White House admitting the second attack did occur while Hegseth defended it as “the correct decision.”
Throughout the speech, Reed stressed that he was not relying on partisan rhetoric or sensationalism. He pointed to the fact that legal experts across the political spectrum—including former Judge Advocate Generals who spent their careers interpreting and enforcing military law—had concluded that the reported scenario would be illegal if confirmed. He underscored that numerous Republican lawmakers privately acknowledged these concerns as well. The issue, Reed insisted, was not ideology. It was whether the United States had adhered to the rules it expects the rest of the world to follow. At the core of Reed’s message was the principle that the law of armed conflict exists not only to restrain violence but to safeguard American troops. If the U.S. disregards these rules, adversaries may feel free to do the same.
Reed expanded this argument by pointing to long-standing concerns about Hegseth’s public stance toward the rules of war. Years before becoming defense secretary, Hegseth routinely questioned the value of the Geneva Conventions and criticized what he described as overly restrictive rules of engagement. He supported pardons for service members convicted of war crimes and political allies convicted for killing civilians in Iraq. In speeches, interviews, and his book The War on Warriors, Hegseth expressed skepticism about legal constraints on combat operations, suggesting that America should prioritize winning conflicts “according to our own rules.” Reed cited these long-standing views not to attack Hegseth personally, but to explain why this particular operation—and the administration’s reluctant and inconsistent explanations—demanded scrutiny.
One of the most alarming revelations Reed shared involved Hegseth’s reported directives to senior military leaders. In an October speech to hundreds of generals and admirals at Quantico, Hegseth warned them not to “fight with stupid rules of engagement,” telling them instead to pursue “maximum lethality” and implying that legal restraints were politically motivated obstacles. According to Reed, Hegseth went as far as telling leaders that if they disagreed with his philosophy, they should resign. Reed portrayed this as a dangerous threat to military professionalism, noting that the U.S. armed forces depend on officers who are trained to uphold the law—even when political pressure pushes in another direction.
Reed also recalled Hegseth’s decision upon assuming office to dismiss the senior Judge Advocate Generals of every military branch. These are officers with decades of expertise in military law, operational law, and the ethics of armed conflict. Their removal, Reed suggested, left a void in the Pentagon’s ability to provide independent legal guidance. It also signaled a troubling shift away from the norms that have long prevented political figures from pressuring or circumventing military legal advisors. Reed warned that without these safeguards, the Department of Defense risked losing its commitment to lawful warfighting, the very foundation on which the credibility of the U.S. military rests.
More troubling still, Reed revealed that for more than three months, Congress has sought basic documentation about the September 2nd strike—documents that the law requires the Pentagon to provide. These include unedited video of the operation, audio recordings, rules of engagement, casualty assessments, intelligence used to identify the vessel as a target, and the official legal memorandum justifying the strike. Reed made clear that these are not optional courtesy requests. They are statutory requirements under the War Powers Resolution and multiple National Defense Authorization Acts. Yet the Pentagon has provided only partial information and has refused to explain critical details. For Reed, this pattern suggested not confusion or bureaucratic delay but deliberate stonewalling.
Reed’s speech emphasized that if the administration believes the operation was lawful, transparent disclosure should be straightforward. Showing the footage would settle the matter instantly. Publishing the legal rationale would allow Congress and the public to judge whether the operation complied with both domestic and international law. Instead, the continued refusal to cooperate has only deepened suspicions. Reed argued that transparency is essential not just for public trust but for maintaining America’s credibility on the international stage. If the United States hides the framework shaping its lethal operations, Reed warned, it cannot expect other nations to respect American rules, American soldiers, or American values.
He also made a broader point: hiding mistakes does more long-term damage to the United States than admitting them. Throughout American history, the country has maintained moral leadership not because it is perfect, but because it has been willing to confront wrongdoing openly. Reed suggested that this moment represents a test of whether the government is still capable of that level of honesty. He expressed concern that the longer the administration delays disclosure, the deeper the crisis of trust becomes. And when trust erodes, both Congress and the public lose faith not just in political leaders but in the institutions responsible for national security.
As Reed laid out the timeline, a disturbing pattern became visible: denial, contradiction, minimal disclosure, shifting narratives, and attempts to place blame on subordinates. Hegseth first denied the second strike occurred. Then the White House said otherwise. Then Hegseth defended the strike as proper. Then he claimed operational commanders acted independently. Reed called this pattern unacceptable for a senior leader entrusted with life-and-death decisions. A Secretary of Defense, Reed argued, must be the most transparent and honest official in the federal government. There is no room for improvisation or political positioning when the U.S. military takes lethal action. The American people deserve to know the truth, and Congress has the legal authority—and responsibility—to demand it.
Reed’s speech culminated with a call for immediate action. He urged the Department of Defense to launch a formal investigation into the strike, to release the full unedited video of the operation, and to declassify the Office of Legal Counsel memo that the administration claims authorizes this type of mission. He emphasized that nothing he requested was unusual. In fact, Reed described these steps as the bare minimum expected from any lawful and transparent military operation. According to Reed, if the administration continues to resist these requests, Congress must consider stronger measures to enforce the law and ensure accountability.
His final message carried unmistakable gravity. Reed stated plainly that he does not trust Secretary Hegseth’s shifting explanations. He argued that repeated contradictions and misrepresentations undermine not just Hegseth’s credibility but the integrity of the Department of Defense as a whole. Reed affirmed that the truth will eventually come out, whether through official investigations, whistleblowers, or public pressure. And he warned that the longer the administration resists transparency, the more severe the consequences may become once the facts are known.
The speech has ignited public debate about whether Congress should force the release of the full operational footage, and whether Pete Hegseth can remain Secretary of Defense amid allegations of misleading statements, possible violations of the law of armed conflict, and a refusal to comply with oversight requirements. Many believe that the coming weeks will determine whether the United States reaffirms its commitment to the rule of law or whether it allows political loyalty to overshadow legal and ethical responsibilities.
Reed’s remarks resonate because they do not come from a partisan provocateur but from a decorated veteran and one of the Senate’s most respected authorities on national security. When he describes an operation as potentially illegal, when he suggests a top defense official has misled the country, and when he warns that service members are being put in danger, those claims carry significant weight. The implications stretch far beyond the careers of individual politicians. They touch upon fundamental questions about how the United States exercises lethal power, how it upholds the laws of war, and how it protects the men and women who serve under its flag.
As public pressure builds, the administration will face growing demands to release the evidence, to explain its legal reasoning, and to demonstrate that America remains committed to the principles it has championed for more than seventy years. Whether it chooses transparency or continued secrecy may determine not only the future of this investigation but the future credibility of U.S. military leadership. In moments of national controversy, accountability is not optional. It is the foundation of democracy. And as Senator Reed made clear, the American people are entitled to nothing less than the full truth.
