Hegseth’s hard-line tactics are becoming a political threat for Trump

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth (Courtesy: Reuters photo)

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s tenure has been turbulent from the start, but the fallout from US strikes on fast boats off the Venezuelan coast has become the most politically perilous phase yet — for him and increasingly for President Donald Trump. Investigations are underway into whether US forces unlawfully killed survivors during maritime interdictions, raising the question of whether the operations may have crossed into war-crime territory, the New York Times reported.

The pressure intensified after reports surfaced that Hegseth verbally authorised orders to “kill everyone aboard” suspected drug-smuggling vessels — a claim he has not directly denied. While the White House insists he never gave specific instructions for a follow-up strike on survivors, Hegseth’s own public statements have been combative, vague and defiantly unapologetic.

Over the weekend, Trump publicly distanced himself from the most controversial allegation, saying he “wouldn’t have wanted a second strike,” even as he continued to insist that he believes his defence secretary “100 percent.”

A pattern of controversy

Even before the Venezuela operation, Hegseth had become one of the administration’s most contentious figures. His confirmation earlier this year passed by a single vote, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie. He had already faced criticism for copying classified war plans into an unsecured Signal chat and then blaming the press for reporting it. His attempts to expel reporters from the Pentagon press room and demand loyalty pledges were rejected even by Fox News, his former employer.

The boat-strike allegations, however, are of a different magnitude. Legal experts note that drug traffickers — unless clearly engaged in hostilities — are classified as civilians under international law. Lethal force is typically authorised only to protect life or disable vessels, not to kill all passengers. Until this year, even under Trump’s earlier term, interdictions in the Caribbean were conducted by the Coast Guard, supported by the Navy, and focused on arrests, not annihilation.

Mixed signals and growing defiance

Rather than offering a clear denial, Hegseth has doubled down on rhetoric casting the operations as counterterrorism. He has repeatedly referred to traffickers as “narco-terrorists,” declared that “every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a designated terrorist organization,” and boasted that operations have “only just begun.”

His tone has further inflamed criticism. On Sunday he posted a meme of a cartoon turtle firing a rocket launcher at a cargo boat, joking that it was “for your Christmas wish list.” The backlash included condemnation from conservative supporters, who accused him of treating the taking of life as entertainment rather than a grave responsibility.

Eroding confidence inside the administration

Behind the scenes, Hegseth’s standing within the national security structure has weakened. Senior officials have grown wary of his fixation on the Venezuela campaign — a strategic outlier while the Pentagon remains focused on China as the United States’ primary long-term rival.

Hegseth has also been marginalised during major decisions. During the administration’s June strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump and White House officials dealt directly with Central Command leaders, bypassing the defence secretary. More recently, when the president sought a Pentagon point person for back-channel negotiations over Ukraine, he chose Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll instead.

Some Republican lawmakers, notably Senators Roger Wicker and Jack Reed, have now initiated bipartisan inquiries into the September 2 strike and its aftermath, signalling a rare willingness within Trump’s party to scrutinise one of his closest cabinet allies.

Political exposure for Trump

For Trump, the political risk is twofold. First, Hegseth’s unfiltered style threatens to overshadow and complicate the administration’s narrative that the maritime operations are lawful and necessary. Second, the investigations — if they find evidence of unlawful orders — could drag the president into a debate about command responsibility.

Trump has defended Hegseth consistently in public but has shifted tone subtly since the latest revelations. He now emphasises that he personally would not have authorised a second strike and appears willing to let Congress pursue its inquiries.

The broader question, for both men, is whether Hegseth’s confrontational approach — once prized by the White House — has begun to erode its political and legal footing at a moment when the administration is under intensified global scrutiny.