Lawmakers press SOUTHCOM on Hegseth’s ‘no quarter’ rhetoric

Lawmakers press SOUTHCOM on Hegseth’s ‘no quarter’ rhetoric Gen. Francis Donovan repeated what others have said: that he wouldn’t follow an unlawful order. Questions about following illegal orders—a frequent theme of the second Trump administration—came up again at a Capitol Hill hearing on Tuesday. Just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that the U.S. war on Iran would feature “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies”—on its face, a violation of international law—the leader of U.S. Southern Command was pressed by House lawmakers who had questions about attacks on alleged drug-running boats off South America. “Has an order been issued to you on ‘no quarter,’ no survivors?” Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., asked Marine Gen. Francis Donovan, alluding to the Sept. 2 “double-tap” attack on the survivors of an initial strike. The Law of Armed Conflict considers survivors of a strike to be “out of the fight” and thus off the table as targets. Donovan said he had not been given any direct orders to offer “no quarter,” a term the military uses to describe sparing survivors of an attack who are no longer able to defend themselves. Asked whether he would consider such an order unlawful, Donovan responded that he would not follow an unlawful order. “Okay, that’s an unlawful order,” Vindman said. It was a familiar line of questioning, going back to the early days of the administration, when Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll were asked about their willingness to follow unlawful orders. It was an unusual query for a confirmation hearing, but one that lawmakers insisted on in light of allegations by one of Trump’s former defense secretaries that he had suggested shooting at unarmed protestors. In his own testimony on Tuesday, Joseph Humire, who is serving unconfirmed in as the Pentagon’s top civilian for homeland defense, said there have been 45 strikes, killing 157 aboard 47 vessels. Legal experts have from the beginning debated whether any of these strikes have been legal, as the Pentagon has offered little evidence that the targets were actively trafficking drugs at the time they were killed. Unlawful orders came up again later in the hearing, as Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., pressed Donovan and his U.S. NORTHCOM counterpart, Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot, in response to recent Trump comments that he had considered federalizing the November midterm election. On March 10, the Democratic National Committee sued the administration to compel a response to whether there are considerations to deploy the military or station armed federal agents outside polling places. Donovan and Guillot were much more clear when asked whether they would deploy troops to stand outside polling locations on election day, an illegal action according to federal law. “Congresswoman, I'm aware that doing so is against the law and I will not follow an unlawful order,” Guilott told Houlahan, while Donovan followed up with, “I will commit to the same.” Humire said that he was not aware of any direction to deploy troops, but said he would “reserve the decision space” for the president. “I hope, Mr. Humire, that you take a look at the law and follow it,” Houlahan said. Help us report on the future of national security. Contact Meghann Myers: mmyers@defenseone.com, meghannmyers.55 on Signal. NEXT STORY: Why the ‘narrow,’ ‘short-term’ sanctions reversal for Russia is neither