Newsmax’s senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, ignited controversy this week by arguing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should be prosecuted for a war crime over the September follow-up strike on a Venezuelan narco-smuggling vessel — a strike the White House insists was lawful, justified, and necessary to defend American lives.
Anchor Shaun Kraisman opened the segment by noting that the White House maintains the operation complied with U.S. and international law, and that the administration’s campaign to eliminate drug-running boats is part of a broader strategy to stop the flow of deadly narcotics into the United States.
But Napolitano pushed back hard, demanding the administration release the legal justification behind the operation and claiming the second strike — reportedly conducted against survivors clinging to the wreckage — crossed the line.
“I wish the White House would reveal to us the laws on which the president is relying,” Napolitano said. He insisted no legitimate legal rationale allows the killing of survivors at sea. “This is an act of a war crime… ordering survivors, who the law requires be rescued, instead to be murdered,” he argued. “There’s absolutely no legal basis for it.”
Napolitano went so far as to say that “everybody along the line” — from Hegseth to the admiral who gave the operational order to the servicemembers who carried it out — “should be prosecuted for a war crime.”
When Kraisman asked who would prosecute such a case, Napolitano said the military would handle it through court-martial, though he acknowledged Hegseth himself, as a civilian, would not fall under military jurisdiction. He added that lawmakers from both parties are increasingly frustrated by conflicting explanations from the administration.
He criticized the shifting narrative around the strike, noting that Hegseth initially denied giving an order for a second attack before the White House clarified the strike was conducted in self-defense. Napolitano scoffed at that explanation: “Self-defense? You got two people in the ocean clinging to a burning boat to stay alive, and they’re gonna be killed for self-defense? That doesn’t make any sense.”
Newsmax then played a clip of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defending the action: “The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests… in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
Napolitano dismissed that justification, claiming the law of armed conflict “says survivors have to be rescued. They can’t be killed.”
Kraisman continued pressing the legal angle, reading Leavitt’s additional statement quoting President Trump: if narco-terrorists are trafficking deadly narcotics toward the United States, he has full authority to eliminate them. Napolitano rejected that rationale as well. “Narco terrorist is not a legal term,” he said. “Using that political term does not justify” lethal action outside active hostilities.
When Kraisman suggested that smuggling lethal drugs constitutes violence that threatens Americans, Napolitano maintained his position.
In the end, the judge conceded his words were “very heavy,” acknowledging the seriousness of accusing U.S. officials of crimes that carry the harshest penalties — including potential execution — but insisted he was being “intellectually honest.”
Republicans and Democrats alike are expected to continue probing the incident, even as the Trump administration remains firm that the strike was lawful, justified, and necessary to disrupt foreign drug networks flooding the U.S. with deadly narcotics.
[READ MORE: Indiana Republicans Unveil Aggressive Redistricting Map Boosting GOP, but Senate Resistance Threatens Passage]
