The Daily — “Did a U.S. Boat Strike Amount to a War Crime?”

Host: Rachel Abrams (The New York Times)
Date: December 3, 2025
Guest: Charlie Savage (NYT National Security Correspondent)

Overview

This episode of The Daily explores mounting bipartisan scrutiny over a U.S. military boat strike in the Caribbean, which killed over 80 people suspected of drug smuggling from South America. The trigger for renewed debate is a Washington Post report suggesting that, after an initial missile attack, U.S. forces fired a second missile targeting survivors — potentially constituting a war crime. Rachel Abrams and Charlie Savage dissect the legal, ethical, and political complexities surrounding the incident, the Trump administration’s justification, and what accountability could look like.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Background: The Boat Strikes Operation

• Operation Context:

  • Since September, the Trump administration has authorized strikes on 21 boats in the Caribbean, killing more than 80 suspected drug smugglers (01:14).
  • The administration classifies these strikes as acts of war against drug cartels, though Congress never authorized such a conflict.

• Renewed Attention:

  • A recent Washington Post investigation details the first attack on September 2 and reveals that a second missile deliberately killed survivors of the initial strike (02:01).

Legal and Ethical Controversies

• Armed Conflict or Not? (03:25)

  • The administration’s legal theory: the U.S. is at war with drug cartels, making suspected smugglers "combatants" rather than "criminals."

  • Most legal experts and lawmakers dispute this, arguing it doesn't meet the criteria for "armed conflict" under international law.

  • Even if it were a war, international law — specifically the laws of armed conflict — forbids attacking shipwrecked survivors, wounded, or surrendering adversaries. Targeting them is considered a war crime.

  • Quote:
    "Very explicitly, you cannot fire upon people who are out of the fight... Explicitly, shipwrecked sailors cannot be fired upon. That is a war crime."
    — Charlie Savage, 03:25

• Intent and Orders:

  • Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth authorized a lethal strike but disputes ordering the killing of survivors (04:57).

  • Admiral Bradley, in charge on the ground, may have interpreted his orders more broadly or acted on his own initiative when ordering the second, fatal strike.

  • Quote:
    "Hegseth gave no additional instructions to Bradley once the attack commenced. In other words, he didn't see or hear that there were initial survivors and then say something."
    — Charlie Savage, 05:14

• Crux of the War Crime Allegation:

  • The key legal question: Was the second missile intentionally aimed at killing survivors, or was its purpose to destroy the boat and drugs (with collateral deaths)? (07:28)
  • If intent was to kill survivors, it's more clearly a war crime; if intent was to destroy drugs, the case becomes murkier.

Administration Defense & Legal Shield

• Administration’s Response:

  • The administration stands by the operation, denying overt instructions to kill survivors. President Trump, however, distanced himself from the second missile, expressing discomfort (08:54).

  • The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) wrote a memo declaring the operations lawful, effectively shielding commanders from prosecution (11:53, 24:49).

    • This so-called “golden shield” has historical precedent from post-9/11 counterterrorism policies, where legally questionable acts (e.g., torture) were justified in OLC memos.

  • Quote:
    "OLC memos are called get out of jail free cards, golden shields... You can just write down some nonsense on a piece of paper on OLC letterhead, and suddenly people are free to do whatever that memo says."
    — Charlie Savage, 24:49

Challenges for Accountability

• Oversight and Congressional Power:

  • Bipartisan calls for investigation are emerging, but the outcomes are uncertain, given political realities and limitations of congressional power (19:25, 22:03).

  • Congress can hold hearings, demand testimony and unedited video evidence, potentially restrict appropriations, or push for political consequences (like impeachment) — but not prosecute individual crimes.

  • Quote:
    "Congress itself is a political body... it doesn't prosecute people... Ultimately, in theory, it could impeach Trump and remove him from office, but we all know... that's unlikely to happen."
    — Charlie Savage, 22:03

• International Law Angle:

  • The International Criminal Court likely lacks jurisdiction unless the strikes occur in territorial waters of member states or target registered vessels (28:03).

Larger Issues and Reflection

• The Narrowness of Current Debate:

  • Savage points out that intense focus on the second missile may distract from broader, foundational questions: is any of the operation legal if there’s no war declared? Are all the killings potentially illegal? (29:52)

  • Quote:
    "The United States is engaged in an extraordinary, legally edgy, to say the least, operation with literally deadly consequences... If it’s not an armed conflict, then all 83 of those killings were arguably just murder."
    — Charlie Savage, 29:52

• Military Ethics and the Role of Legal Advisors:

  • Deliberations for the operation intentionally excluded many career military lawyers. Secretary Hegseth reportedly disliked JAGs, replacing them with politically sympathetic National Guardsmen (09:44).

  • Quote:
    "He seems to have acquired a hostility towards the idea of military lawyers. He talks about them as JAG offs."
    — Charlie Savage, 10:22

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the war crime question:
  "You cannot fire upon people who are out of the fight... shipwrecked sailors cannot be fired upon. That is a war crime."
  — Charlie Savage, 03:25

• On administration’s legal theory:
  "There are compelling reasons why the killing of the survivors of that initial strike could be a war crime if the intent was to kill them, which we do not know."
  — Rachel Abrams, 14:31

• On OLC memo shielding from prosecution:
  "OLC memos are called get out of jail free cards, golden shields... You can just write down some nonsense on a piece of paper on OLC letterhead, and suddenly people are free to do whatever that memo says."
  — Charlie Savage, 24:49

• On congressional limits:
  "Congress isn’t a prosecutor... Ultimately, in theory, it could impeach Trump... but we all know as a matter of political reality that’s unlikely."
  — Charlie Savage, 22:03

• President Trump distancing himself:
  "The first strike was very lethal, it was fine... But he wouldn’t have wanted the second one. Why not? The suggestion is he has some kind of discomfort with that follow up strike."
  — Charlie Savage, 09:12

• On the legal and moral ambiguity at the heart of the strikes:
  "It is an extremely difficult dilemma when you’re faced with a commander in chief... issuing orders backed by a Justice Department memo that very few people outside of the current executive branch of government think holds water. What are soldiers supposed to do."
  — Charlie Savage, 15:06

Key Timestamps

• 00:26 – 01:14: Introduction of the boat strikes, deaths, and legal concerns
• 02:01 – 03:16: Emergence of new details, causing bipartisan outrage
• 03:25 – 04:24: Laws of war and why killing survivors is a central concern
• 05:14 – 07:28: Orders, intent, and the ambiguity over targeting
• 09:44 – 11:46: Exclusion of military lawyers; Hegseth’s role
• 11:53 – 14:31: OLC memo, administration’s legal rationale, and ambiguity of target/intent
• 19:25 – 22:03: Congressional oversight possibilities and limitations
• 24:49 – 26:31: Legal immunity from prosecution via OLC memos
• 28:03 – 29:20: ICC jurisdiction limits
• 29:52 – 31:51: The broader legal and ethical implications beyond the second strike

Tone & Language

• The episode maintains a sober, analytical, and journalistic tone.
• Savage’s comments are measured, detail-oriented, and occasionally laced with understated irony regarding legal justifications.
• Abrams asks concise, clarifying questions, ensuring legal distinctions are accessible to listeners.

Summary for New Listeners

This episode provides a clear, in-depth account of the controversy swirling around lethal U.S. military strikes against suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. It unpacks the Trump administration’s legal justification for viewing the fight against drug cartels as a war — a premise nearly all outside legal experts reject — and painstakingly explains why the deliberate targeting of survivors may amount to a war crime. The discussion critically examines both the administration’s defense (including OLC memos conferring legal immunity) and the limitations of possible congressional or international accountability, spotlighting the ominous precedent such acts — and legal interpretations — may set for future U.S. conduct abroad.