Deadline: White House – "Release the footage"

Host: Nicolle Wallace
Date: December 6, 2025
Theme: Scrutiny over the U.S. military’s controversial September “restrike” in the Caribbean, examination of accountability in military and political leadership, and implications for rule of law and institutional culture.

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the growing bipartisan demand to release footage of the September 2nd U.S. military “restrike” on a boat in the Caribbean. The attack killed 11 people and prompted accusations that it may have constituted a war crime, particularly due to a second strike on shipwreck survivors. The discussion dove into the legality and leadership context of the incident, connecting it to changes in military culture and political oversight under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Trump. Also covered: new developments in the DOJ’s prosecution efforts against New York Attorney General Letitia James and reporting on the use of FBI resources for personal tasks by political appointees.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Caribbean “Restrike” Controversy

• Background: In September, a U.S. military operation targeted a suspected drug-running boat, resulting in multiple strikes and significant civilian casualties ([01:09–02:52]).

  • Notably, after the first strike, two survivors were reportedly shipwrecked, unarmed, and may have been signaling for rescue when they were killed in a subsequent strike.
  • Lawmakers and the public are demanding the release of footage to clarify events.

• Lawmakers’ Reactions:

  • Rep. Jim Himes: Called the video “some of the most troubling things he’s seen in years of public service” ([01:50]).
  • Rep. Adam Smith: Challenged military claims. “By the time [of] the second strike, you have two survivors...on top of that boat and...the decision was to strike those two people...It’s very disturbing...I have serious questions about that conclusion” ([02:10]).

• Definitions & Legal Framing:

  • The term “double tap” is critiqued as misleading. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling insists it was a “restrike” with an interval between attacks, allowing time for assessment—thus raising legal and ethical questions ([07:33]).

• Rules of Engagement vs. Lethality:

  • Secretary Hegseth and some Republicans defend the actions, emphasizing eliminating “politically correct” rules of engagement for “maximum lethality” ([03:42]).
  • Wall Street Journal editorializes against scapegoating lower commanders and calls for civilian leaders to take responsibility ([04:03]).

2. Command Culture and Political Leadership

• Commander's Intent:

  • Lt. Gen. Hertling: Stresses the pervasive impact of Hegseth’s rhetoric, which prioritizes lethality over legality.
    “When you’re the leader...people start picking up on it...there is now an atmosphere or an aura surrounding that commander’s intent” ([05:13]).
  • He draws on history: “There were times to think...between the first strike and the second strike...certainly give any commander...time to consider what he was doing and why” ([07:33]).

• Military Judgement and Law:

  • Adam Smith rejects the argument that survivors with no means to fight (no weapons, no radios) could still be “in the fight” ([11:38–12:11]).
  • Missy Ryan (Atlantic): The military is in “uncharted territory,” taking over traditionally law enforcement roles, and leadership signals from above now have real operational consequences ([12:56–14:23]).

• Historical Precedent:

  • The established principle in the Laws of War is to treat shipwrecked survivors humanely; this episode potentially violates that norm ([17:05, 28:35]).

3. Culture Wars and Revisionism

• Media Narratives:

  • Angelo Carusone (Media Matters): Argues that right-wing media is engaged in revisionist storytelling, painting the military as previously “weak” and now “strengthened” by Hegseth ([17:24]).
  • There’s division—even among conservatives—about whether to defend or criticize the strike and leadership decisions, leading to confusion and selective outrage ([18:25–18:37]).

• Trump’s Position:

  • Despite Fox News hosts giving him credit, Trump distances himself: “If there was a second strike, I wouldn’t have approved of that” ([18:28]).

4. Case Study Value and Institutional Learning

• Military at a Crossroads:
  • Hertling: The incident will become a case study on upholding rule of law and resisting politicization:
    “The military has been through these kinds of tests before...but certainly right now, it’s a tough time...” ([15:19]).
  • The panel agrees that accountability and learning from history are critical, and that current events will shape future officer training ([17:05]).

5. DOJ Efforts Against Letitia James

• Failed Indictments:
  • DOJ’s attempts to indict New York AG Letitia James on alleged mortgage fraud charges have failed twice before grand juries ([33:35–36:11]).
  • Carol Lennig reports that repeated failures may strengthen the defense’s case, especially if forced to expose FBI agents’ grand jury testimony ([38:39]).
  • “If there is a third attempt, it...triggers...that they would have a much likelier chance...of obtaining all of the agent’s testimony...That will be super helpful to the defense” (Carol Lennig, [39:00]).

6. Misuse of FBI Resources

• Kash Patel Scandal:
  • Reporting reveals that FBI agents were directed to act as chauffeurs for Director Kash Patel’s girlfriend's friends—an unprecedented and demoralizing use of law enforcement resources ([41:03]).
  • “Sources reached out to us because they’re outraged at the use of FBI resources as an Uber for Patel’s girlfriend’s friend” (Carol Lennig, [42:11]).

7. Supreme Court: Trump’s Citizenship Challenge

• New Case:
  • Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship, with far-reaching implications for constitutional law ([45:12]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Rep. Adam Smith:
  “By the time the second strike, you have two survivors with their shirts off...that was what the decision was, was to strike those two people on that boat. So it’s very disturbing.” ([02:10])
• Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling:
  “There is now an atmosphere or an aura surrounding that commander’s intent...he’s trying to divorce himself from the issue and put the emphasis on Admiral Bradley, absolutely correct.” ([05:13])
• Missy Ryan:
  “This is really uncharted territory for the military itself.” ([12:56])
• Angelo Carusone:
  “The narrative of the story that they’re sharing is...we’ve been fundamentally weak and somebody like Hegseth is going to go in there and change the culture. And that is what he promised to do.” ([17:41])
• Lt. Gen. Hertling:
  “I think...these kinds of things are going to be case studies in the future about...adherence to the rule of law...” ([15:19])
• Carol Lennig:
  “If there is a third attempt [to indict Letitia James], it...triggers...a much higher chance of obtaining all of the agent’s testimony...” ([39:00])

Key Timestamps

• 01:09 – Introduction of the Caribbean attack controversy
• 02:10 – Rep. Adam Smith’s disturbing description of the attack
• 03:42 – Hegseth’s defense of aggressive rules of engagement
• 05:13 – Lt. Gen. Hertling on “commander’s intent” and leadership culture
• 07:33 – Distinction between “double tap” and “restrike”; legal implications
• 11:38 – Lawmakers describe evidence (or lack thereof) of survivors’ threat
• 12:56 – Missy Ryan on new military roles and leadership signals
• 15:19 – Hertling on the politicization of the military and case study value
• 17:24 – Right-wing media and revisionism (Carusone)
• 18:28 – Trump distancing himself from the strike
• 28:35 – NYT: survivors may have been signaling to surrender
• 32:55 – Reminding the military: do not obey unlawful orders
• 33:35 – DOJ’s failed prosecution of AG Letitia James
• 38:39 – Re-indictment efforts could backfire on DOJ (Lennig)
• 41:03 – FBI agents misused as drivers for political appointees
• 45:12 – SCOTUS takes up Trump’s birthright citizenship case

Tone and Language

• Sober, direct, and analytical with visible frustration from military professionals.
• Lawmakers appearing shaken or disturbed by what they've viewed.
• Reporters and analysts emphasize factual rigor and warn of historical lessons ignored or rewritten by contemporary politics.

Conclusion

The episode underscores a moment of crisis in American civil-military relations: the tension between legal/historical norms and political/cultural change. Calls for transparency over the “restrike” footage are rooted in fears of violations of the laws of war, fueled by leadership rhetoric that prioritizes “lethality over legality.” The legal and cultural tide in Washington is in flux, with Republican and Democratic criticisms converging around issues of command responsibility and the preservation of rule of law. Beyond the military incident, the episode spotlights a pattern of aggressive and potentially politicized use of government power, from DOJ prosecutions to the misuse of FBI resources, revealing anxieties about institutional integrity and future accountability.