Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password
Reason logo

Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.

Reason is supported by:
John Huyette Pillow

Donate

Rand Paul

Rand Paul Bashes Pete Hegseth Over Boat Bombings: 'He Was Lying…or He's Incompetent'

Paul says Hegseth misled Congress about deadly strikes on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean.

Robby Soave | 12.3.2025 8:44 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) expressed outrage at being misled by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea.

Hegseth initially claimed to have had no knowledge of a reported second strike on a vessel, which killed two alleged drug traffickers who were clinging to their ship's wreckage after the first strike. The following day, the White House confirmed the second strike—maintaining that it had been authorized.

Rand Paul:

"Sec. Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this and it did not happen. It was fake news. And then the next day, from the podium of the WH, they're saying it did happen. So either he was lying to us on Sunday or he's incompetent and didn't know what had happened." pic.twitter.com/btmpIt6lcH

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) December 3, 2025

Paul is correct to harp on this point, since the second strike—if undertaken for the sole purpose of killing the survivors—is flagrantly illegal and immoral. It is a "war crime," according to legal analyst Andrew Napolitano.

But of course, the overarching problem is that the initial strike on the boat lacks clear legitimacy. In fact, on some level, it's a bit odd for the media to fixate on the second strike to such a degree, since there can be little doubt that the first strike was intended to destroy the boat and kill everyone on board. The expectation had to be that blowing up the ship would result in the deaths of all passengers, one way or another.

The proper question, then, is whether it is appropriate for President Donald Trump to designate alleged "narco-traffickers" as terrorists and consign them to death. Here too, Paul is correctly raising the point that most Americans would recoil at the idea of the president unilaterally determining that an individual is a terrorist and thus subject to being killed. If Trump really does want to go this route, then at the very least, Congress should vote to authorize military action against the alleged drug traffickers. Otherwise, it's akin to an overseas law enforcement operation, in which certain principles of due process should obviously apply.

On this week's episode of Free Media, I discussed the killings of alleged drug traffickers with Amber Duke and Niall Stanage. Watch here.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: University of Oklahoma Student Is Justifiably Shocked at Sudden Expectation She Be a Good Writer

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

Rand PaulPoliticsWarDrug PolicyPentagonTrump AdministrationWar on Drugs
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (1)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. LIBtranslator   1 hour ago

    Rand Paul will shut up if Hegseth assures him the boats were crewed by pregnant women, none of whom have individual rights.

    Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Webathon 2025: Dec. 2 - Dec. 9 Thanks to 303 donors, we've reached $79,675 of our $400,000 goal!

Reason Webathon 2023

All Donations NOW Being Matched! Donate Now

Latest

Rand Paul Bashes Pete Hegseth Over Boat Bombings: 'He Was Lying…or He's Incompetent'

Robby Soave | 12.3.2025 8:44 PM

University of Oklahoma Student Is Justifiably Shocked at Sudden Expectation She Be a Good Writer

Christian Britschgi | 12.3.2025 5:10 PM

Hegseth's 'Fog of War' Is No Excuse for Summarily Executing Suspected Drug Smugglers

Jacob Sullum | 12.3.2025 4:25 PM

DHS Continues Airport Cash Seizures, a Year After the Justice Department Ended Them Due to Constitutional Concerns

C.J. Ciaramella | 12.3.2025 3:53 PM

Auditors Submitted 24 Fake Applications for Subsidized Health Insurance. Only 1 Was Denied.

Eric Boehm | 12.3.2025 2:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

HELP EXPAND REASON’S JOURNALISM

Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.

Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREEDOM

Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks