“Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was totally destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Leavitt said.

But several experts in international law interviewed by TIME said the events as described in the Post report, if accurate, constitute “murder” and a “war crime” for which Hegseth could be held legally culpable.

“It is absolutely unlawful to order that there will be no survivors,” Rebecca Ingber, professor of law at Cardozo Law School and an expert in international law, tells TIME. “There is no actual armed conflict here, so this is murder.”

“Declaring that there be no survivors or otherwise killing people hors de combat is a war crime. This is one of the most basic and longstanding rules of LOAC,” she adds, referring to the laws of armed conflict.

Hegseth called the report “fabricated” and a part of a “fake news” campaign to discredit service members in a lengthy response on X, without directly denying that he ordered the strikes.

“As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes,’” he wrote on Friday. “The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”

The Pentagon directed TIME back to Secretary Hegseth’s statement on X when asked for a response to the Post’s claims.

Leavitt’s comments on Monday appear to contradict President Donald Trump’s statement late on Sunday, when he said that Hegseth had denied giving the order to strike the boat a second time.

“I don’t know anything about it. He said he did not say that, and I believe him, 100 percent,” Trump said aboard Air Force One. Asked whether he would have agreed with the order if Hegseth had given it, Trump replied: “He said he didn’t do it, so I don’t have to make that decision.”

Since the release of the Post report, both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee have announced their intention to investigate the strike in a rare display of bipartisan alignment.

Laura Dickinson, professor of law at George Washington University and an expert in the law of armed conflict, says that if the report is true, Hegseth could be exposed to criminal liability under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)—the military’s criminal code that applies to members of the armed forces.

“In an armed conflict, the intentional killing of a protected person—someone who is a civilian or a person who is ‘hors de combat’ because they have laid down their arms or are shipwrecked at sea—is a war crime,” Dickinson says.

Dickinson cites the story of Lt. William Calley, who, during the Vietnam War, commanded his platoon to kill unarmed Vietnamese civilians in what later became known as the My Lai massacre. Calley’s crimes were initially covered up, but he was later convicted of killing 22 civilians.

As the senior official alleged to have issued the order, Hegseth could be held legally responsible for the killing of the two survivors of the initial strike under the UCMJ, according to Dickinson. She notes, however, that the UCMJ would only apply if the United States is considered legally at war with drug traffickers, as the Trump Administration claims it is.

Dickinson notes that “most experts” do not believe there is an armed conflict between drug traffickers, and as a result, there would be even stricter rules for the use of lethal force.

“If there is no armed conflict, the use of lethal force is only lawful if it is strictly necessary as a last resort, and, if Hegseth gave the orders as reported, those orders would not have been lawful,” she says.

“The U.S. War Crimes Act, which provides jurisdiction in U.S. federal civilian courts for war crimes prosecutions, including those committed by U.S. persons, could also apply.”

Jennifer Trahan, a professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs who has served as an advisor to the International Criminal Court (ICC) tells TIME that the United States “is not at war at all, meaning that all of the strikes are illegal—not solely the strike being discussed.”

“Drug trafficking is a crime—and drug traffickers should be charged with a crime, apprehended, and prosecuted,” she says.

The question of whether the U.S. is engaged in an armed conflict with drug traffickers or not could determine how this case, and others surrounding it, are dealt with legally.

Deborah Pearlstein, professor of law and public affairs at Princeton University, also believes that Hegseth could be liable under civilian law.

“Even if the administration is wrong and there’s no ongoing war, Hegseth would be liable under the ordinary federal criminal law prohibiting murder,” she says. “Members of the armed forces are effectively immune from being prosecuted for such laws if there is actually an ‘armed conflict’ on. If not, no such immunity attaches.”

Whether Hegseth is also potentially liable under the UCMJ depends on the details of his status as a former service member, Pearlstein adds.

“Secretaries of Defense are generally not subject to the UCMJ, but Hegseth, as a former service member, may be,” she says. “Even if Hegseth isn’t liable under the UCMJ, any active duty service member who carried out the order to kill the survivors in the water absolutely would be.”