Congress Pressures Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in New Spending Bill Over Caribbean Boat Strikes

The U.S. House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a must-pass defense spending bill that directly challenges Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, demanding greater transparency over U.S. military operations in the Caribbean and threatening restrictions on his discretionary travel budget if he fails to comply.

According to reporting cited from The Washington Post, the legislation would withhold 25 percent of Hegseth’s travel funds until he discloses all orders authorizing nearly two dozen military strikes conducted since September in waters off Latin America. The bill also requires the release of unedited video footage of those operations.

Lawmakers expect the Senate to approve the measure in the coming days, and congressional leaders have expressed confidence that President Donald Trump will ultimately sign it into law, given the bill’s status as essential defense funding legislation.

A Congressional Demand for Accountability

Legal scholars and lawmakers have framed the House’s move as an effort to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over military spending and oversight.

“This is fundamentally about accountability,” said Professor Jamie Rowan, a legal studies and political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, during a televised discussion. Rowan argued that Congress is using one of its most powerful tools—control over spending—to force transparency from the Department of Defense.

Rowan characterized the alleged boat strikes as deeply troubling, stating that the intentional killing of civilians, even if drug trafficking is suspected, lacks justification under both domestic and international law unless the United States is engaged in a formally recognized armed conflict involving organized militants.

“Both of those conditions are absent here,” Rowan said, adding that such actions raise serious legal and moral questions for military personnel involved.

Questions Over Lawful and Unlawful Orders

Central to the controversy is whether military personnel were acting under lawful orders. Rowan emphasized that U.S. military doctrine explicitly requires service members to refuse unlawful commands, including orders to kill civilians who pose no immediate threat.

The Department of Defense’s own training materials, Rowan noted, list the killing of shipwrecked individuals as a clear example of an unlawful order.

The concern, according to critics, is whether senior leadership—including Hegseth—authorized or implicitly endorsed such actions. If so, legal responsibility could extend beyond those who carried out the strikes to those who issued or approved the orders.

Moral Injury and Legal Risk for Service Members

Beyond legal liability, Rowan warned of the long-term psychological consequences for troops asked to carry out operations they believe to be unlawful or immoral. Such experiences, often described as “moral injury,” can have lasting effects on veterans’ mental health and reintegration into civilian life.

Drawing parallels to past conflicts, Rowan cited historical cases where lower-level soldiers faced prosecution while senior policymakers avoided accountability, including incidents stemming from the Iraq War.

“This places service members in an impossible position,” Rowan said. “They are expected to follow lawful orders while facing retaliation or investigation for questioning orders that may be unlawful.”

Broader Concerns About Executive Power

The debate over the defense bill unfolded alongside renewed scrutiny of executive authority, particularly following a federal court ruling in California ordering an end to the federalization of the National Guard and returning control to the state governor.

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the administration failed to demonstrate that civilian law enforcement was “unable” to enforce the law—a statutory requirement for federalizing state militias under Title 10 of U.S. law.

In a sharply worded opinion, Breyer warned that unchecked executive power could effectively create a permanent national police force, a scenario the nation’s founders explicitly feared.

What Comes Next

If enacted, the defense spending bill would mark a rare and significant congressional rebuke of a sitting defense secretary from the same administration, underscoring bipartisan concern over transparency, civilian oversight of the military, and adherence to constitutional and international law.

As pressure mounts, the key question remains whether Secretary Hegseth will release the requested documentation and footage—or whether Congress will escalate its response using further funding restrictions.