The White House is facing intensifying scrutiny after confirming that a U.S. admiral ordered a second strike on a Venezuelan-origin boat in September—one that reportedly killed survivors from an initial blast. Lawmakers from both parties, international legal experts, and multiple foreign governments are now raising alarms that the operation may have violated international law and basic rules of engagement.
White House: Admiral Ordered Follow-Up Strike to “Eliminate the Threat”
Speaking to reporters, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had authorized kinetic operations against what the administration calls “presidentially designated narcoterrorist groups.”
According to Leavitt, Hegseth delegated operational authority to Adm. Frank Bradley, who then ordered the controversial second strike:
“Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Leavitt said.
She added that the administration considers these boat crews to be members of foreign terrorist organizations, asserting that they are smuggling narcotics “killing our citizens at a record rate.”
However, her statement directly conflicts with reporting that Hegseth may have issued a verbal directive to “kill everybody” onboard prior to the initial strike—an allegation Hegseth denies.
Washington Post Report Triggered Firestorm
A Washington Post investigation reported that the first missile strike on September 2 left two survivors clinging to debris. According to the Post’s sources, Bradley then ordered a second strike to comply with a no-survivor directive allegedly communicated by Hegseth.
The White House now acknowledges the second strike, but disputes the reported motive. Officials insist the follow-up strike was part of a lawful engagement under the laws of armed conflict.
Lawmakers Warn of Potential War Crime
Republican and Democratic members of Congress alike have raised concerns that the second strike violated both U.S. military law and international humanitarian law.
Under the law of armed conflict, shipwrecked survivors are considered hors de combat—no longer lawful targets. Military legal experts interviewed by the Associated Press and other outlets say that deliberately killing survivors is “prima facie unlawful,” regardless of whether the administration labels the boat crews as “narcoterrorists.”
Some lawmakers are now calling for congressional hearings, with others requesting the Pentagon’s legal memos authorizing the operation.
Foreign Governments: Victims Were Fishermen, Not Terrorists
Statements from several governments contradict the administration’s claims that the boats were tied to major criminal groups:
Venezuela: Its National Assembly has opened an investigation, saying the dead were not linked to Tren de Aragua and accusing the U.S. of “extrajudicial executions.” Colombia: Officials say at least one victim was a Colombian fisherman. Trinidad & Tobago: Families there say two men killed in October strikes were local fishers, not drug smugglers.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has urged the U.S. to halt the operations, calling the strikes legally questionable and lacking transparency.
At Least 80 Killed Since September
According to administration disclosures and independent tallies, U.S. forces have conducted more than twenty strikes against small vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific since September 1, killing at least 80 people. Very little information has been released about the identities of those killed or the intelligence used to justify lethal force.
Growing Uncertainty Over U.S. Legal Authority
The administration argues it is operating under a “non-international armed conflict” framework—an assertion at odds with UN experts and many legal scholars, who say unilateral, undeclared killings outside a battlefield require clear evidence of imminent threat.
The lack of publicly available intelligence, combined with contradictory statements between the White House, Trump, and Hegseth, has deepened concerns that the campaign may be operating outside established legal norms.
A Crisis of Transparency
The second-strike confirmation marks the clearest public acknowledgment yet that survivors were intentionally targeted—raising profound questions about executive authority, military rules of engagement, and the precedent the U.S. is setting through these operations.
Congressional oversight bodies are expected to demand documentation in the coming days.
Texas Reporter 