U.S. lawmakers from both parties are demanding answers about a September U.S. strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean that killed survivors of an initial attack, amid intensifying questions over the operation’s legality. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has confirmed he authorized the first strike but says a follow-up attack that sank the vessel was ordered by Admiral Frank Bradley, prompting debate over whether the actions violated U.S. or international law.
On September 2, U.S. forces carried out an airstrike on a small boat in the Caribbean that officials said was suspected of smuggling drugs. According to reporting by NPR and the Associated Press, the attack killed several people on board and left visible survivors in the water or on the damaged vessel.
Subsequently, a follow-on strike was launched that sank the boat and killed everyone still on board, a decision that has drawn scrutiny from legal experts and members of Congress who question whether the second strike complied with the laws of war or peacetime rules governing the use of force.
In public comments described by NPR and other outlets, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said he authorized and watched the initial strike but did not direct the second one. Administration officials have said Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, had authority over the follow-up strike and used it to order the boat destroyed.
Hegseth has defended the overall operation and argued that commanders acted appropriately based on the information they had. Trump administration officials, including White House spokespeople and Pentagon lawyers, have maintained that the strikes were lawful, citing a classified Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo that frames U.S. actions against cartel‑linked drug‑smuggling vessels as part of a broader non‑international armed conflict.
Democrats and some Republicans in Congress are not satisfied. Lawmakers on the House and Senate Armed Services committees are pressing for briefings, as well as video and audio recordings of the September 2 mission, to determine who gave the order for the second strike and what U.S. personnel knew about survivors at the time.
According to NPR’s reporting, congressional critics have raised the possibility that, if the United States is not legally at war with drug‑trafficking organizations, killing survivors on a disabled vessel could amount to an extrajudicial killing rather than a battlefield decision. Some legal experts interviewed by news organizations have likewise questioned whether the administration’s reliance on an armed‑conflict theory is sustainable.
Key members of both parties have called for more transparency. Senate Democratic leaders, including Chuck Schumer, have urged Hegseth to release the video of the strike and testify publicly about the decision‑making process. Republicans such as Senator Rand Paul have expressed broader concern about the scope of the campaign and the extent of executive war‑making without explicit congressional authorization, particularly as the administration links the maritime strikes to pressure on the government of Venezuela.
Human rights advocates have also been sharply critical. Groups such as Human Rights Watch have argued in public statements and interviews that, absent a clearly defined armed conflict, intentionally targeting a vessel when the crew is already incapacitated could violate international human rights standards and, at minimum, raise serious questions about extrajudicial killings.
The September 2 incident is part of a wider series of U.S. strikes in the Caribbean and nearby waters since early September that have targeted what the Trump administration describes as drug‑smuggling boats linked to cartels and the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Reuters has reported that at least 83 people have been killed in roughly two dozen such operations.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly defended the campaign and claimed, without publicly released underlying data, that the strikes are reducing the flow of narcotics to the United States. At the same time, a separate case involving a Colombian fisherman killed in a U.S. strike on September 15 has prompted a formal human rights petition to the Inter‑American Commission on Human Rights, underscoring growing international concern about the U.S. strategy.
Admiral Bradley is expected to brief lawmakers behind closed doors this week. Members of both parties say those sessions, along with any eventual public hearings, will be critical to determining whether U.S. personnel followed their rules of engagement and whether additional congressional action on war powers or targeting authorities is needed.
