Washington, D.C. — The Trump administration’s strikes against suspected drug-smuggling vessels have come under intense scrutiny following reports that the first U.S. attack on September 2 involved multiple strikes, with survivors of the initial attack allegedly killed in a follow-up strike, according to the Washington Post.
The report also cited that Peter Hegseth allegedly gave a verbal order to “kill everybody” during the operation in the Caribbean Sea. Hegseth has not confirmed this, stating he did not see survivors in the live video he viewed and was not present when Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who commanded the operation, ordered the second strike. Bradley reportedly acted to comply with Hegseth’s directive as two survivors clung to wreckage.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the second strike was directed by Bradley, saying he acted “well within his authority and the law … to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat of narco-terrorists to the United States was completely eliminated.” Leavitt clarified that Hegseth authorized the strikes but denied that the defense secretary had ordered the deaths of survivors.
President Trump stated he “wouldn’t have wanted” the second strike, adding that Hegseth told him he did not order the death of those two men. Trump acknowledged on Tuesday that he did not have full information about the second strike.
Since September 2, the U.S. has conducted 20 additional strikes, reportedly killing over 80 individuals alleged to be involved in drug trafficking in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. The Trump administration classifies the cartels as terrorist organizations, asserting a non-international armed conflict and claiming legal authority to act.
Legal and Congressional Concerns
Democrats in Congress have questioned the legality of the strikes, warning the campaign could escalate into conflict with Venezuela. Legal experts challenge the administration’s claims, noting that drug cartels do not qualify as organized armed groups under international law. Former military prosecutors argue that labeling cartels as terrorist groups does not grant the president authority to use military force.
Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor, emphasized:
“There’s nothing magic about calling something a terrorist organization that then gives the president the authority to respond militarily.”
Potential War Crimes
The follow-up strike that allegedly killed two survivors has sparked debate over whether it constitutes a war crime. Experts highlight that Geneva Conventions rules prohibit targeting defenseless individuals and require that the wounded be protected. The Defense Department Law of War Manual prohibits attacks designed to leave no survivors, even in non-international armed conflicts.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described the second strike as a potential war crime:
“The basic rules of war … make very clear that you do not strike wounded people in the water in order to kill them.”
Legal scholars argue that if the strikes are not part of a recognized armed conflict, domestic law applies. In this case, killing survivors could be considered murder under U.S. military law, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and could also constitute conspiracy to commit murder on the high seas.
Administration Response and Policy Rationale
Hegseth defended the broader campaign, asserting the U.S. has “only just begun striking narco-boats and putting narco-terrorists at the bottom of the ocean.” He acknowledged a recent pause in operations due to difficulty locating vessels, emphasizing that deterrence must replace the previous “rinse-and-repeat” approach of arrests and releases.
The Sept. 2 incident has intensified debates over presidential authority, the legality of targeted strikes, and adherence to international law, while Congress considers investigations into both the operational and legal aspects of U.S. military action against suspected drug traffickers.
