Day: December 2, 2025

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his team are facing questions and criticism after the Washington Post reported that he ordered the killing of “everybody” during an operation targeting an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean Sea, which controversially included a follow-up strike on survivors of an initial strike. Hegseth has rejected suggestions that he may have committed war crimes, defending the strikes on purported “narco-terrorists” as “lawful” and even posting an illustration that seemingly makes light of the situation. But as the controversy has grown, he and the White House are naming someone else as ultimately responsible for the decision to strike again.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Let’s make one thing crystal clear,” Hegseth posted Monday night on X. “Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since.” He added that the U.S. was “fortunate to have such men protecting us.”

The White House also appeared to point to Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, who lawmakers are now hounding amid concerns about the legality of the strikes in early September. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that Hegseth authorized Bradley to conduct the second strike, as part of the U.S.’s larger mission to combat narco-terrorism.

“Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Leavitt told reporters.

Critics and observers have suggested Hegseth and the White House are throwing Bradley under the bus. “He is selling out Admiral Bradley and sending chills down the spines of his chain of command, who now know their boss will sell them out if he is taking heat. A case study in how not to lead,” posted Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. “How to point the finger at someone while pretending to support him,” posted Fox News Channel’s chief political analyst Brit Hume.

Here’s what to know.

Why are the strikes controversial?

The Post reported, based on interviews and accounts from seven individuals, that Hegseth issued a spoken directive to “kill everybody” in the Sept. 2 strike on a boat traveling in international waters from Venezuela—among the earliest attacks in the Caribbean by the Trump Administration in its increasingly war-like anti-narco-terrorism campaign.

Eleven people were on board the boat when the U.S. military fired a missile at it, the Post reported. But as the smoke cleared, they discovered two survivors clinging to the wreckage. Bradley, who monitored the operation from Fort Bragg, N.C., ordered another strike to comply with Hegseth’s directive. Bradley also reportedly said that the survivors remained legitimate targets since they could contact other drug traffickers to rescue them and their cargo. The survivors were subsequently “blown apart in the water,” the Post reported.

The Intercept first reported on the follow-up attack that killed the survivors in September.

International law experts told TIME that, if the report is true, Hegseth, Bradley, and others involved may face criminal liability for the killing of survivors. “There is no actual armed conflict here, so this is murder,” Rebecca Ingber, a law professor at Cardozo Law School, said. Laura Dickinson, a law professor at George Washington University, said that “the intentional killing of a protected person—someone who is a civilian or a person who is ‘hors de combat’ because they have laid down their arms or are shipwrecked at sea—is a war crime.”

Speaking to the press aboard Air Force One on Sunday, President Donald Trump said, “I don’t know anything about it,” when asked about the Post’s report of Hegseth’s potentially illegal order. “[Hegseth] said, he said, he did not say that. And I believe him,” Trump said. But even he seemed uneasy with the idea of a second strike to eliminate survivors, adding: “No, I wouldn’t have wanted that. Not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine, and if there were two people around—but Pete said that didn’t happen. I have great confidence.”

Who is Adm. Mitch Bradley?

Bradley, according to his Navy biography, is a 1991 graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He became a Navy SEAL in 1992, was among the first to deploy into Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks, and has since commanded at all levels of special operations. He is married and has four children.

During the Sept. 2 strikes, Bradley was leading the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which oversees elite military teams, handles complex and sensitive military missions, and at times works with the CIA. In October, he assumed command of the JSOC’s parent group, the United States Special Operations Command, which oversees the military’s special operations in more than 80 countries.

What happens next? 

Lawmakers in both chambers and across party lines have already launched probes into the report of the second strike.

The House Armed Services Committee, in a statement by chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R, Ala.) and ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D, Wash.), said their panel is “committed to providing rigorous oversight” of the Defense Department’s operations in the Caribbean: “We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R, Neb.), a vocal intraparty critic of the Trump Administration who’s also on the House Armed Services Committee, told ABC News Sunday, “When people want to surrender, you don’t kill them, and they have to pose an imminent threat. It’s hard to believe that two people on a raft, trying to survive, would pose an imminent threat.”

But he also appeared to give Hegseth the benefit of the doubt. “I don’t think he would be foolish enough to make this decision to say, ‘Kill everybody, kill the survivors,’ because that’s a clear violation of the law of war,” Bacon said. “I’m very suspicious that he would’ve done something like that because it would go against common sense.” (Then again, Bacon has previously referred to Hegseth’s Department of Defense as the “Department of Dense.”)

“We need a bipartisan, national hearing,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D, Calif.). “I am calling on @PeteHegseth and Admiral Bradley to testify and explain their actions to the nation.”

Sens. Roger Wicker (R, Miss.) Wicker and Jack Reed (D, R.I.) of the Senate Armed Services Committee also issued a joint statement, saying that their committee already sent questions to the Defense Department and that it “will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

Sen. Mark Kelly (D, Ariz.), a member of the Armed Services Committee who has come under fire from the Trump Administration for being one of a group of Democrats who warned military servicemembers to resist illegal orders, told reporters at a press conference on Monday that he’s spoken with Wicker about calling on Hegseth and Adm. Bradley to appear before the committee. Kelly added, “If what seems to have happened actually happened, I’m really worried about our servicemembers.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to meet with President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow today to discuss the U.S.-led peace plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war. The pair will be joined for the high-stakes sit-down by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

The summit comes after Witkoff and Kushner, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, led a U.S. delegation in talks with Ukrainian officials in Florida over the weekend. Rubio said the meetings, which followed on from similar talks between U.S. and Ukrainian representatives in Geneva last week, were “productive,” but admitted there’s “more work to be done.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“This is delicate, it’s complicated, and there’s a lot of moving parts,” Rubio told reporters after the sit-down. “Obviously, there’s another party involved [Russia] that will have to be a part of the equation, and that will continue later this week when Mr. Witkoff travels to Moscow.”

The Ukrainian delegation in Florida was led by a new negotiator, Rustem Umerov, who serves as the country’s National Security and Defense Council secretary. Umerov took over the helm from Andriy Yermak, who resigned as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief-of-staff last week after a raid on his home by two national anti-corruption agencies amid a widespread corruption scandal.

The Trump Administration’s 28-point proposal to end the Russia-Ukraine war leaked on Nov. 20, and has since been vigorously discussed by the two main parties, European officials, and the U.S.

Among the more controversial points of the proposal was the stipulation that Kyiv reduce its army and make significant land concessions—a request Ukraine has always adamantly ruled out as a possibility. The proposal also contained a pledge that Ukraine won’t join NATO, shutting down one of Zelensky’s long-time ambitions. Trump previously urged Zelensky to forgo Crimea and retire the idea of joining NATO. The U.S. President reiterated his stance during an interview with Fox News Radio on Nov. 21, arguing that Ukraine is already “losing land” and would likely lose that land “in a short period of time” anyway, should the conflict with Russia continue.

Given the land concessions suggested, there were concerns raised as to who authored the 28-point plan, with some lawmakers—both Republican and independent—suggesting that the proposal had been authored by Russia or its allies. Rubio staunchly rejected this claim, saying: “It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”

After the proposal leaked, Zelensky lamented that his country had been faced with a difficult “choice” between losing its dignity or a key partner, the United States.

Zelensky has since worked on a “refined” peace proposal with U.S. officials including Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, and has reiterated his rejection of significant land concessions, while also doubling down on his argument that frozen Russian assets be used to help rebuild Ukraine (an item that is suggested in the original U.S.-drafted proposal).

“Putin wants legal recognition for what he has stolen, to break the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty. That is the main problem,” said Zelensky in a video address to the Swedish parliament last week.

Zelensky repeated those red lines again on Monday, during a press briefing alongside one of his most vocal allies, French President Emmanuel Macron. He also expressed his hope that he and Trump will share a phone call after the Putin-Witkoff summit.

The world leaders put on a united front, condemning Putin’s continued advance into Ukraine, with Macron urging: “Russia must stop the aggression. It has given no signal, no proof to that effect.”

Macron and Zelensky also spoke with Witkoff and Umerov during their time together on Monday, as well as various European supporters.

Meanwhile, some of Zelensky’s ardent European allies have expressed concern over the talks in Moscow, which Ukraine will not be involved in.

“We shouldn’t lose focus that it’s actually Russia who has started this war, and Russia that is continuing this war,” Kaja Kallas, the E.U. high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, told the media on Monday. “I am afraid that all the pressure will be put on the weaker side, because that is the easier way to stop this war when Ukraine surrenders, but this is not in anybody’s interest.”

Read More: Zelensky Says Ukraine Faces Losing Dignity as Trump Issues Deadline to Sign His New Peace Plan

The sit-down between Putin and Witkoff comes after a leaked audio recording appeared to show the U.S. special envoy advising a Russian official on how to best appeal to Trump. (Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump defended Witkoff, saying that although he had not heard the audio, it was merely a “standard form of negotiation” for a “dealmaker” to do.)

Now, with all eyes on Moscow as the high-stakes meeting comes to fruition, and with Ukraine and Europe anxiously awaiting updates, here’s a breakdown of the key issues at the center of the Russia-Ukraine peace talks—and where the Kremlin stands.

The proposed land concessions at the heart of the Russia-Ukraine stalemate

The original widely-leaked peace proposal sought a number of significant land concessions, prompting grave concern from Zelensky and his European allies.

A section labelled “territories” put forth that “Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk will be recognized as de-facto Russian, including by the United States” and emphasized that “Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.”

Among the most contentious of points was the notion that Ukraine would also hand over some of its own unoccupied territory.

According to the proposal, which has since been revised (although the amendments have not been made public) Russia would “relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions” and “Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control.”

In a statement shared with TIME on Nov. 21, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the plan was formed “to find the best win-win scenario, where both parties gain more than they must give.” Rubio also stated publicly that “a durable peace [would] require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions.”

Experts have warned that the proposed land concessions are of paramount concern.

The Donetsk Oblast is “Ukraine’s best fortified, best defended terrain at this time,” said George Barros, senior analyst of the Russia and Geospatial Intelligence Lead at The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), arguing the strategic nature of the possible concessions.

Russia is “adamant about having all of the Donetsk Oblast,” Barros told TIME.

“The Russians are therefore trying to have the Ukrainians diplomatically surrender terrain that the Russian military is very unlikely to actually seize through warfighting. And then once they have this terrain, they have the gate to the center of Ukraine,” predicted Barros. “If you give the Russians this terrain, it [increases] the likelihood of them being able to advance much deeper.”

Debates over territories are expected to be a core focus of the talks between Putin and Witkoff. But there’s little indication that the Russian President intends on compromising. (Putin’s August summit with Trump in Alaska notably ended earlier than expected, with no deal being reached.)

Putin said last week that pursuing a peace deal with Ukraine is “pointless,” so long as Zelensky is in office.

Mapping out his hardline conditions during a trip to the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, Putin celebrated Russia’s advancement on the battlefield and suggested that Russia will reach its goals by completing its military operations.

“If Ukrainian forces leave the territories they hold then we will stop combat operations,” he said. “If they don’t, then we will achieve it by military means.”

Putin’s comments underline the bitter stalemate between Moscow and Kyiv, as his demand that Ukraine surrender its own territory is met with Zelensky’s refusal to concede that land.

Read More: Zelensky Says Russia ‘Must Pay Fully’ for War in Ukraine as U.S. Agrees to Modify Peace Plan

Security guarantees—a shared focus of Zelensky and his European allies

“The war must be brought to a fair end. It is important to make progress on developing security guarantees and a long-term foundation for our resilience— for both Ukraine and Europe,” said Zelensky on Monday.

Zelensky has been bolstered by the support of his allied European counterparts, with security guarantees at the forefront of discussions.

While the leaked U.S.-drafted peace proposal included a pledge that “Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees,” there was a vagueness surrounding such guarantees and how they would be enforced.

The Coalition of the Willing, a group of countries that support Ukraine, previously committed to deploying troops on the ground in Ukraine after a cease-fire. But Putin swiftly rejected the proposals for the so-called “reassurance force.”

Speaking at an economic forum in Vladivostok in September, he warned that any troops deployed to Ukraine would be “legitimate targets for destruction.”

The leaked peace plan—in its original form—also proposed that Kyiv reduce its army.

While this idea has, unsurprisingly, not encountered any backlash from the Kremlin, it has concerned European officials.

“If we want to prevent this war from continuing, then we should curb the army of Russia and also their military budget… the focus should be on the concessions that Russia will make,” argued E.U. high representative Kallas. “Ukraine has never attacked Russia. If aggression pays off, it will serve as an invitation to use aggression again and to use it elsewhere. That is a threat to everybody in the world.”