Wild Twist: NYT Rides to Hegseth's Rescue and Demolishes WaPo's 'Kill Them All' Hit Piece

A new report from The New York Times is now undercutting one of the central claims used by Democrats and their media boosters to accuse Secretary of War Pete Hegseth of unlawful conduct — a claim that helped fuel last week’s reckless push to encourage service members to defy orders from President Donald J. Trump.

The controversy erupted after The Washington Post published a Thursday piece alleging that Hegseth issued a “spoken directive” telling U.S. forces to “kill everybody” after an initial Sept. 2 strike on a Venezuelan narco-terrorist vessel in the Caribbean. In its headline, the Post went even further, summarizing the supposed directive as “kill them all.”

According to the Post, unnamed sources claimed that “Hegseth’s order… adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers,” arguing that some critics believed the lethal operation — which has eliminated more than 80 cartel-aligned traffickers — was unlawful. The outlet further asserted that a “Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack… ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions.”

But The New York Times, citing five separate unnamed officials, delivered a strikingly different account on Monday — one that directly contradicts the Post’s sensational narrative.

Per the Times, Hegseth had indeed authorized a lethal action against the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua vessel ahead of the mission, intending to neutralize the traffickers and destroy their drug-laden craft. However, the officials told the paper that Hegseth “did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things,” nor did he issue any follow-up order targeting survivors.

Instead, the Times reported that “Admiral [Frank] Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat,” all without any further instruction from Hegseth. Later in the report, two separate officials confirmed Hegseth issued a written execute order authorizing lethal force — but “made no oral directive at the meeting that went beyond the written order.”

Crucially, the Times noted that The Washington Post “did not provide context on when Mr. Hegseth gave what its sources described as a spoken order to kill everyone.” In other words, the Post’s central allegation still lacks any verifiable timeline or corroboration.

The timing is notable: the Times’ clarification came just one day after the White House publicly backed Hegseth, with President Trump reiterating that “Pete said he did not order the death of those two men” allegedly seen clinging to the damaged boat.

Yet The Washington Post continued pressing its narrative Monday, suggesting congressional and Pentagon officials fear the administration may “scapegoat” Admiral Bradley — the officer who directed the follow-on strikes — and implying the Sept. 2 operation could amount to a war crime. The insinuation, again driven by anonymous sourcing, only deepened the political theater surrounding the mission.

Hegseth himself pushed back forcefully. In a statement defending Admiral Bradley, he wrote: “Let’s make one thing crystal clear: 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. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us.”

The House and Senate are now reviewing the operation as part of their oversight responsibilities. On Monday, CNN reported that Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker spoke directly with Hegseth and confirmed that a second strike occurred. Wicker emphasized that his committee intends to examine the full audio and video of the mission before drawing conclusions.

“I don’t have that information, but I do think we’ll get that information, and we’re certainly going to have available to us all of the audio and all of the video. At that point, I’ll be able to have a more informed conversation,” Wicker said. “We’re going to conduct oversight, and we’re going to try to get to the facts.”

With competing narratives, political opportunism, and anonymous leaks swirling, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: The Washington Post’s original storyline is looking shakier by the day — and its timing raises questions about whether the reporting was crafted to fuel the left’s new campaign of encouraging military insubordination against President Trump.