The Trump administration is defending its campaign of targeting small boats suspected of smuggling drugs from South America, even as officials give mixed accounts about who ordered a second round of strikes that killed survivors.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he authorized and watched the first Sept. 2 strike on a small vessel but did not observe a later set of attacks that sank the burning boat and killed people who remained alive after the initial strike. At a White House Cabinet meeting, Hegseth said he “watched that first strike live” and then moved on to other duties. He told reporters that he did not see survivors on the video and that Adm. Frank M. Bradley later ordered the follow-up strikes. Hegseth said Bradley “had the complete authority to do” so and that sinking the boat was the correct decision to eliminate the threat.
Hegseth’s account drew swift criticism. Rep. Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, called Hegseth’s remarks a “CYA moment,” arguing the secretary remains responsible for placing forces in a difficult situation with unclear orders.
The core dispute is whether using lethal force against civilian crews and passengers is lawful. A Justice Department memo provided to Congress asserts the U.S. is engaged in a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels and that the strikes comply with the laws of war. Opponents say that rationale is legally murky and insufficient. Smith noted the memo’s internal inconsistency: parts treat the situation like an armed conflict while other parts suggest it is not, raising questions about congressional oversight and the legal framework for deadly force.
The Washington Post reported the Sept. 2 incident involved two separate sets of strikes and that survivors visible after the first attack were hit again and killed. Hegseth initially denied that account but later acknowledged the basic sequence. Military and legal experts warn that if the campaign is an armed conflict, killing people who appear to be surrendering or otherwise helpless could constitute war crimes. A group of former military lawyers has criticized the administration’s approach.
Human Rights Watch’s Washington director, Sarah Yager, rejected the claim that the campaign is lawful wartime action, saying there is no armed conflict and calling the killings “literally murder.” She warned that the strikes set a dangerous precedent by enabling lethal actions without ordinary rules, limits, or accountability.
President Trump and Hegseth have defended the operations. Hegseth argued the targets qualify as “narcoterrorists” but has not publicly produced evidence. Trump claimed the strikes saved hundreds of thousands of lives — a figure far higher than U.S. annual overdose deaths — and said he relied on Hegseth for details, while also saying he “didn’t know about the second strike.” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said that “the secretary and the president are the ones directing these strikes.”
Questions about accuracy and oversight persist. Sen. Rand Paul posted a letter indicating that 21% of Coast Guard interdictions recover no drugs, highlighting the potential for misidentification. Lawmakers warn orders for these strikes may be illegal and could risk prosecution for servicemembers. Adm. Bradley is expected to testify before Congress, where officials will face further scrutiny over who approved the strikes and the legal basis for the campaign.