The Trump administration is defending its controversial campaign of targeting and killing crews of small boats suspected of smuggling drugs from South America to the U.S., but officials have sent mixed signals about who ordered deadly follow-up strikes that killed survivors.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he authorized and watched the initial Sept. 2 attack on a small boat but did not witness a later round of strikes that sank the burning vessel and killed survivors. “I watched that first strike live,” Hegseth said at a White House Cabinet meeting. “As you can imagine, the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So I moved on to my next meeting.” He said he did not see survivors on the video and that Adm. Frank M. Bradley later ordered the strikes that sank the boat. “A couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the [decision], which he had the complete authority to do,” Hegseth said. “And by the way, Adm. Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.”
Hegseth’s account drew criticism, including from Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who called Hegseth’s remarks a “CYA moment” and said the secretary bears responsibility for putting forces in a difficult position with questionable orders.
The debate has centered on whether the use of deadly force against civilian crew and passengers is legal. The Justice Department provided Congress with a memo asserting the U.S. is in a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels and that the strikes comply with the laws of war. Critics say that reasoning is ambiguous and insufficient. “This memo…is fascinating because half of it says, this is why this is an armed conflict…and the other half says, no, it’s not a war, so therefore, we don’t have to get permission from Congress,” Smith said.
The Washington Post reported the Sept. 2 incident involved two sets of strikes and that survivors visible after the first attack were struck again and killed. Hegseth initially denied that account but later confirmed the basic facts. Military and legal experts warn that if the U.S. were treating the campaign as an armed conflict, killing people who appear to be surrendering or are otherwise helpless could amount to war crimes. A group of former JAG officers has been critical of the administration’s approach.
Human Rights Watch’s Washington director, Sarah Yager, rejected the premise that this is a lawful wartime action. “It’s not a question of a war crime because there’s no war, there’s no armed conflict, so it can’t be a war crime. It is literally murder,” she said, adding that such actions “set a dangerous template” by allowing strikes without normal rules, limits, or consequences.
President Trump and Hegseth defended the strikes, with Hegseth saying evidence supports labeling the targets “narcoterrorists,” though he declined to present proof publicly. Trump claimed the operations saved hundreds of thousands of lives — a figure far above U.S. annual overdose deaths — and said he relied on Hegseth for details. At the same time, Trump said he “didn’t know about the second strike” and wasn’t involved in specifics. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson, however, stated that “the secretary and the president are the ones directing these strikes.”
Questions about accuracy and oversight persist. Sen. Rand Paul posted a letter he received indicating 21% of Coast Guard interdictions recover no drugs, suggesting a significant margin for error in identifying smuggling vessels. Lawmakers are raising concerns that orders for these strikes may be illegal and could expose servicemembers to prosecution. Adm. Bradley is scheduled to testify before Congress, where further scrutiny of who ordered the strikes and the legal justification is expected.