NV DEMS ROSEN & CORTEZ MASTO PUSH FAKE WAR CRIMES STORY

By Andrew Smith

December 9, 2025

Some Context:

Major news outlets, led by The New York Times, are suing the Pentagon over new, restrictive media rules implemented by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the last 30 days. Payback?

According to the CDC, 100,000 a year, or about 270 Americans per day are poisoned and die from Fentanyl.

Nevada Senators Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto issued sweeping claims this week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “likely committed a war crime” after a U.S. strike destroyed a suspected narco trafficking vessel near Venezuela. Their statements were delivered before any investigation had concluded, before Congress received classified briefings, and before the Pentagon released official records of the mission.

A fuller examination of the legal history, operational context, and national security environment raises serious doubts about the senators’ characterization.

The senators’ accusation rests on anonymous reporting, not established evidence

The Washington Post story the senators relied on included no transcript, audio recording, or document confirming that Hegseth issued an unlawful directive. It relied instead on unnamed individuals’ interpretations of an exchange that has not been publicly verified. Despite this, Rosen announced that Hegseth had “likely committed a war crime,” and Cortez Masto declared him unfit for office.

These are conclusions ordinarily reserved for the end of an inquiry, not the beginning.

Obama administration precedent contradicts the senators’ framing

The Obama administration conducted hundreds of lethal strikes outside traditional battlefields, including the high-profile operation that killed American citizen Anwar al Awlaki in 2011. That strike was justified by a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo that concluded the United States may use lethal force against terrorist operatives abroad when three conditions are met: the target poses a continuing threat, capture is infeasible, and the action conforms to the laws of war.

The memo stated:

“Lethal force may be used against a terrorist leader outside areas of active hostilities when necessary to protect the United States.”

It did not require a formal declaration of war or a conventional battlefield. It did not require the presence of uniformed enemy forces. It did not require that the target be a citizen of a hostile state.

That legal framework was renewed under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It remains the backbone of executive counter-terrorism authority today.

Given that the traffickers targeted in the recent strike operate within a network designated as a foreign terrorist organization, the basic legal theory is not new or unusual.

Maritime narcotics trafficking is a national security threat, not a routine criminal matter

The senators’ criticism also avoided the broader context of the operation. The United States has long treated maritime drug trafficking as a security threat. Congress codified this approach through the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, which grants U.S. forces extraordinary authority to interdict and neutralize drug trafficking vessels in international waters. Courts have repeatedly upheld that authority even when the vessels lack a direct connection to the United States.

The reason for this expansive posture is simple. The drugs moved by these networks kill Americans on a scale unmatched in modern history.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 107 thousand Americans died of drug overdoses in 2023. More than 75 thousand of those deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. These chemicals are transported primarily by cartel linked organizations using maritime routes across the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.

The administration argues that these groups function as paramilitary actors, not ordinary criminals. Their trafficking pipelines kill more Americans each year than many past wars. That environment shapes the operational decisions U.S. forces make and the lens through which these operations are evaluated.

The senators portrayed the traffickers as victims while omitting their role in the drug flow into the United States

Rosen’s and Cortez Masto’s statements described the men on the vessel as “survivors” of an unjust attack. They did not mention the narcotics pipeline the vessel was suspected of supporting. They did not acknowledge the overdose crisis. They did not address the link between maritime trafficking networks and the synthetic opioid epidemic that has devastated families across the country, including in Nevada.

This framing presents a partial picture of the operation and obscures the harm caused by the organizations targeted in the strike.

The White House maintains the strike was lawful and authorized

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Admiral Frank Bradley, the operational commander, authorized the secondary strike under standing legal authority. She stated that the administration considers the traffickers involved to be narco terrorists and that the intention of the strike was to destroy the vessel and prevent its continued use in trafficking.

Intent matters under the law of armed conflict. Without verified evidence that commanders or civilian leaders intended to kill individuals who were no longer engaged in hostile activity, the senators’ claim of a war crime remains unsupported.

Oversight investigations are underway, and the final record has yet to be developed

Both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have opened inquiries. These investigations will have access to classified intelligence, after action reports, and communications that are not yet public. Those findings, not anonymous characterizations, will determine whether the operation violated the law.

By moving immediately to the language of war crimes, Rosen and Cortez Masto preempted that process. Their conclusion reflects politics, not the evidence currently available.

A more complete assessment shows their accusation is premature and overstated

The Obama administration relied on similar legal reasoning for lethal strikes. The drug trafficking networks targeted in this mission support the synthetic opioid crisis that kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. Federal law provides the military broad authority to neutralize trafficking vessels. The White House maintains that the strike complied with the law and was directed at the vessel itself.

None of that fits the senators’ description. Their charge of a war crime remains far out ahead of established facts, precedent, and the operational reality behind the mission.