Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is under bipartisan criticism over a September 2 U.S. strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean, amid conflicting accounts about who ordered follow‑up attacks that reportedly targeted survivors. The incident has intensified debate over whether the campaign against alleged narco‑terrorists complies with U.S. and international law. President Trump has publicly defended Hegseth while signaling plans to expand the strikes to land targets.
On September 2, U.S. forces carried out a strike on a suspected drug‑smuggling vessel in the Caribbean as part of "Operation Southern Spear," a Trump administration military campaign targeting alleged narco‑traffickers in the Western Hemisphere. The September 2 strike was the first in a series of attacks on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that, according to multiple news reports, have killed more than 80 people to date, most of them described by U.S. officials as members of criminal or cartel‑linked groups.
According to reporting by The Washington Post and summarized by outlets including NPR and Slate, the initial September 2 attack hit a Venezuelan boat and killed most of those on board. Subsequent accounts differ on who ordered additional strikes after the first engagement. The Washington Post report, echoed in NPR's coverage, describes unnamed U.S. officials alleging that Hegseth verbally directed forces to carry out further attacks to ensure no survivors remained, raising questions under the law of armed conflict, which prohibits targeting people who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked. The Pentagon's Law of War Manual includes protections for such individuals in non‑combatant or hors de combat status.
Hegseth has denied that he ordered troops to kill survivors, calling the reports "fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory," and insisting that the operations are lawful under both U.S. and international law. White House officials have acknowledged that a second strike occurred on September 2 but have said, in public briefings and statements reported by NPR, that the final decision to reengage the vessel was made by Vice Adm. Frank Bradley, the head of Joint Special Operations Command, who they argue acted within his legal authority and rules of engagement. At least one unnamed U.S. official quoted by NPR, however, maintains that Hegseth directed "two strikes to kill" and additional strikes to sink the boat, contradicting the White House's characterization of the chain of command.
The New York Times has also reported on the episode, describing Hegseth's initial order as authorizing the first strike without specifying what should happen if survivors remained, and attributing the decision to conduct follow‑on strikes to Bradley. Together, the accounts from The Washington Post, NPR and the Times present a disputed picture of whether the order to target survivors came from Hegseth himself or from commanders in the field, and whether any such order would violate U.S. military law or international humanitarian law.
The controversy has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have publicly questioned the legality and morality of the boat strikes, and key members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have announced inquiries into the September 2 incident and the broader campaign. According to NPR's reporting, committee leaders have requested documents from the Pentagon and scheduled closed‑door briefings with senior military officials, including Bradley, who is expected to appear for a classified session later this week.
Some Democrats have been particularly sharp in their public remarks. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has described the situation as "a sick parody" and called Hegseth's conduct "a national embarrassment," according to NPR. Other lawmakers have expressed alarm that a senior official in the national command authority could be implicated in possible violations of the law of armed conflict. Republicans, while generally supportive of aggressive action against drug traffickers, have also urged clearer legal justifications for the campaign and more transparency about targeting procedures.
The furor intensified after Hegseth posted an image on social media over the weekend parodying Franklin the Turtle, the children's book character, wielding a rocket launcher against drug‑running boats. The mocked‑up cover, titled along the lines of "Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists," appeared shortly after the controversy over the September 2 strike became public. Canadian publisher Kids Can Press, which owns the rights to Franklin, issued a statement condemning what it called the violent and unauthorized use of the character's name and image, saying it strongly opposed any denigrating or militarized portrayal of Franklin. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, responding to questions about the post, defended Hegseth's broader message about combating cartels and suggested that Franklin would not be "inclusive" of drug gangs, according to NPR's account.
The Franklin meme, which critics described as flippant given the civilian‑casualty concerns, has been cited by legal experts and advocacy groups as emblematic of what they see as an unserious tone surrounding potentially grave violations of the laws of war. Commentators in Slate and other outlets have argued that the episode risks undermining public trust in the Pentagon's adherence to international norms, even as officials insist that each strike is reviewed by lawyers and based on intelligence linking vessels to drug‑trafficking networks.
Amid the backlash, President Trump has continued to defend both the campaign and his defense secretary. During a December 2 Cabinet meeting, he announced that "Operation Southern Spear" would expand from maritime interdictions to include strikes on narco‑traffickers on land, in countries such as Venezuela and Colombia. According to a report in The Daily Wire, Trump said that the administration's efforts at sea have cut drug smuggling "by more than 90 percent" and claimed that targeting narco‑terrorists has saved "hundreds of thousands of lives," though he did not provide underlying data to support those figures. Trump also warned that any country facilitating drug shipments to the United States could face U.S. military action.
At the same meeting, Trump said the Pentagon would soon begin conducting land‑based strikes on narco‑terrorist targets, calling such operations "much easier" than maritime attacks and asserting that U.S. intelligence agencies "know where the bad ones live." Hegseth, speaking alongside the president, vowed that the United States has "only just begun" targeting narco‑terrorists and pledged to put traffickers "at the bottom of the ocean" for "poisoning the American people," according to The Daily Wire's account of the session.
Human rights lawyers and some former military legal officials have warned that extending the operation onto foreign territory, particularly outside recognized war zones, could deepen legal and diplomatic risks for the United States. They argue that, absent clear authorization under international law or host‑nation consent, such strikes could be viewed as extrajudicial killings. The administration, for its part, maintains that its actions are a lawful exercise of the United States' right to self‑defense against transnational criminal organizations tied to lethal drug flows.
As congressional investigations get under way and the administration moves toward land strikes, the central questions facing policymakers are whether the September 2 attack and subsequent strikes adhered to the law of armed conflict, and who ultimately bears responsibility if they did not. The answer could have significant implications not only for Hegseth's future but also for how the United States wages its expanding campaign against narco‑trafficking networks.
