At the heart of the controversy are two questions: who ordered the second attack on the boat in September and was it legal?
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Here’s what we know:
What happened?
On September 2, 2025, the US military attacked a boat in the Caribbean during Operation Southern Spear, a major campaign that President Donald Trump’s administration claims aims to dismantle drug trafficking networks.
The ship was destroyed in the first attack and nine people were killed. Two survivors were left trapped under the debris.
According to The Washington Post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a verbal directive, described in its reporting as an order to “kill everyone.”
The mission commander, Admiral Frank Bradley, then ordered a second attack – killing the two survivors.
Experts have called the second strike – known in military jargon as a “double tap” strike – illegal. The attacks have been criticized not only by Democrats but also by many Republicans in Congress, who have promised to lead an investigation into what happened.
The Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee announced Friday that it planned to ensure “oversight” into the attacks. “The Committee is aware of recent news reports and the Department of Defense’s initial response regarding alleged follow-up attacks on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” the committee chairs, Republican Senator Roger Wicker and Democratic Senator Jack Reed, said in a statement. “The committee has directed the department to investigate, and we will conduct a vigorous investigation to determine the facts surrounding these circumstances,” he said.
Separately, the House Armed Services Committee said it was seeking “a full accounting of the related operation.”
Congressional committees have sought audio recordings and other evidence to determine how the order was given.
So far, more than 80 people have been killed and more than 20 boats have been targeted in the widespread US operation in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
What did Pete Hegseth say?
Hegseth called the reports “fake news” on social media and said the boat attacks “were in compliance with the law of armed conflict – and were approved by the best military and civilian lawyers up and down the chain of command”.
But he also seemed to be justifying the double attack.
“The stated intent is to interdict lethal drugs, destroy narco-bots, and kill narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people,” Hegseth said in a social media post Friday evening. “Each smuggler we killed is affiliated with a designated terrorist organization.”
Earlier this year, the Trump administration formally designated the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a terrorist group. It also accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading the Cartel de los Souls – which US officials describe as a drug-trafficking network that includes senior figures in the country’s government and armed forces.
In fact, the Cartel de los Solos is not a cartel at all – a broad term used by Venezuelans for corrupt senior officials. And the US administration’s own Drug Enforcement Agency lists other countries – not Venezuela – as major sources of narcotics entering the US. While Trump has repeatedly claimed that Tren de Aragua is a mask for Maduro, his own intelligence agencies have concluded that there is no connection between the gang and the Venezuelan president.
As always, fake news is creating more fabricated, inflammatory and defamatory reporting to defame our incredible warriors fighting to protect the motherland.
As we have said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective attacks are specifically…
– Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) 28 November 2025
Have Trump and the White House contradicted each other?
Answering questions on Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said his administration would “look into” the report of a second attack on the boat on September 2.
But he also said that “I didn’t want that – not another attack.”
He noted that Hegseth told him “he did not order the deaths of those two individuals.”
In nearly two dozen subsequent attacks by US forces on boats, US troops, in many cases, helped rescue survivors and then returned them to the countries where they belonged.
However, in contrast to Trump’s statement, White House Press Secretary Carolyn Leavitt echoed Hegseth in justifying the second strike on September 2.
Responding to a reporter’s question on Monday evening, he said, “The attack on September 2 was carried out in self-defense to protect the interests of Americans and vital United States interests. The attack was carried out in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
So who approved the strike?
The White House said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized multiple attacks in September on a Venezuelan ship allegedly carrying illegal narcotics, killing 11 people. pic.twitter.com/pMJkyAvt2E
– Reuters (@Reuters) 2 December 2025
According to the White House, Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct the September 2 “attacks” – suggesting that the Secretary of Defense had given the mission commander permission to conduct multiple attacks on the boat if needed.
“Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” Leavitt said at a media briefing on Monday.
But the actual decision to conduct the second attack was Bradley’s, Leavitt said.
“Admiral Bradley acted well within his authority and within the law. He gave orders to ensure that the boat was destroyed and that the threat of narco-terrorists to the United States was completely eliminated,” he said.
Why does the question of who ordered it matter?
According to experts, the second attack that killed survivors was illegal.
Rachel VanLandingham, a military expert at Southwestern Law School, told Al Jazeera, “Instead of due process and criminal prosecution, the Trump administration has decided to be judge, jury and executioner, and on its own claim that these individuals are carrying drugs, ordered them to be killed, which is extrajudicial killing, which is murder.”
He said, “The second attack against persons who are shipwrecked, clinging desperately to the side of the wreck of their boat – that is a war crime. It is a war crime because persons who are shipwrecked have protected status under the law, unless they are, for example, firing a gun at someone. But, otherwise, they are protected.”
Experts say that legally, the US can only use force when there is a real threat, so identifying the decision maker is important to determine whether the strike followed the rules.
<a href