Bulwark Takes — LIVE: Did Trump Just Order a Murder at Sea? | Bulwark on Sunday

Host: Bill Kristol
Guest: Ryan Goodman (Professor of Law, NYU; Editor, JustSecurity.org; former DOD official)
Date: September 7, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode of Bulwark on Sunday tackles the explosive news of a U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean—an apparent order from President Trump to destroy what was described as a "drug vessel." Bill Kristol and national security law expert Ryan Goodman break down the core legal, ethical, and political questions raised by the strike, consider its potential to signal a shift in U.S. policy, and discuss the larger implications for American law and governance. Throughout, they critique the administration’s contradictory rationale, lack of transparency, and alarming embrace of extrajudicial force.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Actually Happened? (00:03–02:25)

• Event Recap: A vessel in the Caribbean, billed as a “drug vessel,” was destroyed by a U.S. military Hellfire missile. Video was released by the administration.
• Key Questions:
  • Under whose authority was this done?
  • Who was actually on the vessel? Drug smugglers or migrants?
  • Is this part of a new campaign, possibly escalating toward military action in Venezuela?

2. Legal Authority and Classification: Murder? (03:10–05:53)

• Blunt Assessment:
  • Goodman calls it “patently illegal,” describing the act as “murder” both under U.S. and international law.
  • Even within “armed conflict,” you can’t kill civilians or drug transporters; this likely breaches Geneva Conventions, the U.S. War Crimes Act, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Notable Quote:

“This is patently illegal. But just, it's one of those moments in which knowing what seems to have happened here is just murder. I mean, murder.”
—Ryan Goodman (03:26)

3. Official Justifications and Fluctuating Stories (06:38–13:02)

• Shifting Rationale:
  • Administration statements have varied, citing everything from “imminent threat” to “collective self-defense,” but providing scant detail about the targets or intelligence.
  • War Powers report to Congress is “conspicuously vague”; lacks meaningful identification of those killed.

Notable Quote:

“We've had so many statements that have sort of thrown out and then not backed up. … It just feels to me, they're saying phrases they think will help them legally or for public relations. But none of them applies.”
—Bill Kristol (08:44)

Notable Quote:

“If they knew who they were, you would have it in the War Powers Report … This one is lacking. There are conspicuous absences.”
—Ryan Goodman (08:44)

4. Imminent Threat and Self-defense: Legal Misapplication (13:02–16:53)

• Legal Thresholds:
  • “Imminent threat” in law means an immediate armed attack, not the generalized threat of drugs entering a country.
  • U.S. federal law does not provide for killing suspects outside due process.
  • Military personnel cannot excuse actions on “following orders” if the order itself is patently unlawful.

Notable Quote:

“Imminent in the sense of they're about to pull the trigger. Not that they're about to bring in drugs to the United States…”
—Ryan Goodman (13:02)

5. Exclusion of the Coast Guard and Evident Planning (17:06–19:43)

• The Coast Guard, normally responsible for these situations, seems to have been deliberately excluded, suggesting forethought and higher-level planning.
• Regular interdiction is routine and effective—using deadly force is a radical departure justified only (by Rubio et al.) as “sending a signal.”

Notable Quote:

“It seems as though now for at least a couple weeks that the Coast Guard has been excluded from the military operations… That troubles me more because it means more people in the loop that would actually authorize something.”
—Ryan Goodman (18:23)

6. Policy Justification: Sending a Message? (15:31–17:06)

• Secretary Rubio suggests the policy goal was to disrupt the business model by creating fear among smugglers by demonstrating a willingness to kill.
• Both agree that this is not a legal rationale: “You can’t kill people outright, even if that’s your policy goal.”

7. Precedents and Dangerous New Norms (19:43–22:05)

• Parallels drawn to Duterte’s drug war in the Philippines.
• The rationale, if accepted, would have no “limiting principle”—why not kill drug suspects in the U.S.?

Notable Quote:

“What would—where’s your limiting principle? Why wouldn’t you … just start doing that inside the United States?”
—Ryan Goodman (19:43)

8. Chain of Command and Lawyer Exclusion (22:05–23:31)

• Goodman is “heartened” (ambivalently) that maybe career DOD lawyers were excluded, since it’s hard to imagine them signing off. Their exclusion suggests “consciousness of guilt.”

Notable Quote:

“Why would you exclude the career lawyers from the process? … I really want to know who signed up for this and how that went down the chain.”
—Ryan Goodman (22:29)

9. Lack of Transparency and Congressional Oversight (24:08–25:26)

• No press briefing, no detailed statement, canceled congressional briefing—contrary to post-op norms.
• Internal military anxiety about legal responsibility; murmurs at SOUTHCOM about needing legal cover.

Notable Quote:

“There’s been literally one and a quarter page letter to Congress … extremely vague and which seems to imply the legal justification is the president’s Article 2 powers.”
—Bill Kristol (24:08)

10. No Statutory Authorization—Article 2 Only (25:26–27:55)

• No Congressional (statutory) authorization for the strike.
• Article 2 authority is weak—no precedent for president’s unilateral global kill authority; “nothing that can tie” the 2001 AUMF to this.

11. The Prospect of More Strikes and Escalation (27:55–29:50)

• Administration implies there are plans for more such actions; Wall Street Journal reporting on multiple strikes being planned suggests internal resistance may be emerging.
• Discussion of possible escalation to operations inside Venezuela—a “massive change.”

12. Legal and Policy Road Toward War with Venezuela (29:50–34:46)

• Targeting Venezuela would unequivocally require Congressional approval.
• Any linkage between Venezuelan government (Maduro) and Trend Aragua are contradicted by U.S. intelligence.
• Comparison to U.S. strike on Iran: even that likely lacked proper authorization; this would be far more clear-cut in requiring it.
• Administration may attempt to justify escalation via the Alien Enemies Act.

13. Domestic Legal Maneuvering: Alien Enemies Act (36:26–38:29)

• Fifth Circuit recently ruled against the Trump administration's use of Alien Enemies Act.
• Ongoing war with Venezuela might retroactively bolster government arguments before the Supreme Court.

14. Strategic Shift: “America First” Redux (38:29–39:44)

• Reports suggest a new national security strategy de-emphasizing China and Russia, focusing force on the Western Hemisphere—evoking an “America First” attitude, but with a militarist twist.

Notable Quote:

“It does seem Putin-esque in a sense of thinking about the sphere of influence around the United States…”
—Ryan Goodman (39:44)

15. Looking Forward: Can the Administration Avoid Scrutiny? (40:21–42:15)

• Goodman believes the administration will ultimately be forced to explain, at least in closed congressional briefings.
• If it emerges that the killed were not drug smugglers, the “national conversation” could shift dramatically.
• Observers should watch for further strikes and signs of internal DOD resistance.

Notable Quote:

“I do think if the shoe drops, that these 11 individuals were not, in fact, drug smuggling, that I think would be a big change in the national conversation.”
—Ryan Goodman (41:28)

Memorable Moments

• Direct condemnation: Goodman repeatedly calls the action “murder,” a striking departure from usual legal caution.
• Historical precedent: Kristol recalls actual government briefings after past strikes, emphasizing the glaring absence of transparency now.
• Rubio's reversal: Noted that Rubio once opposed Duterte’s Philippine drug war tactics (extrajudicial killings), yet now helps justify this strike.

Important Timestamps

• 00:03 — Episode introduction and framing of the incident
• 03:26 — Goodman: "This is patently illegal … murder"
• 08:44 — Discussion of the shifting, unsupported official statements
• 13:02 — Breakdown of “imminent threat” legal standard
• 18:23 — Exclusion of Coast Guard and implication of pre-planning
• 19:43 — Discussion on absence of a limiting principle and parallel to Duterte
• 22:29 — Evidence of excluding DOD lawyers from authorization
• 24:08 — Lack of transparency, vagueness of War Powers letter
• 29:50 — Prospective escalation to military action in Venezuela
• 32:48 — Kristol: “Hard to see how that’s legitimate without getting congressional approval.”
• 38:29 — New national security strategy shifts focus to the Western Hemisphere
• 41:28 — Anticipation of a major shift in the public debate if victims were not smugglers

Final Thoughts

This episode examines not just the legality of a single, shocking act, but the potentially seismic shift it augurs in American policy, law, and strategic posture. Kristol and Goodman’s analysis is deeply skeptical of the administration's statements, highlighting legal dangers, historical inconsistencies, and the risks of normalizing extrajudicial killing as a policy tool—at home or abroad. They urge continued scrutiny, congressional oversight, and vigilance for escalation or further legal subversion.

For further insights and updates on this issue, follow JustSecurity.org and the Bulwark team’s ongoing coverage.