A new report on a deadly U.S. strike in the Caribbean is generating significant concern in Washington, focusing on what War Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered—and what he did not. The Sept. 2 operation targeted a suspected drug-running vessel and resulted in 11 deaths.
According to the New York Times, which cited five U.S. officials, Hegseth approved a strike to destroy the boat, its suspected narcotics cargo, and everyone aboard. However, the report states that his authorization did not clarify what should occur if individuals survived the initial attack.
The mission was ultimately overseen at the operational level by Adm. Frank Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. He approved both the initial strike and the subsequent follow-up attacks.
Controversy intensified after the Washington Post reported last week that the second strike—directed at two survivors clinging to debris—was conducted under what it described as Hegseth’s “kill everybody” directive.
But sources who spoke to the Times forcefully disputed that account. They insisted Hegseth issued no real-time orders to Bradley during the operation and was not aware that anyone had survived the first blast when the additional strike occurred.
The White House sought to draw a firm distinction between Hegseth’s authority and the tactical decisions made during the mission. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that the administration’s policy allows lethal targeting of narcoterrorist groups when permitted under the laws of war.
In her statement, Leavitt said Hegseth provided authorization for Bradley to conduct the strikes. She emphasized that the operation fell within established legal frameworks governing military engagements.
Leavitt added that Bradley acted within his lawful authority when directing the engagement. According to her, his aim was to ensure the destruction of the vessel and the elimination of what was deemed a threat to the United States.
President Trump also weighed in publicly, defending Hegseth during remarks aboard Air Force One on Sunday night. He reiterated that his war secretary denied ordering the deaths of the two survivors.
“Pete said he did not order the death of those two men,” Trump told reporters. “And I believe him.” His comments appeared intended to reinforce confidence in Hegseth amid rising political scrutiny.
Congressional leaders, however, are taking the incident seriously. The chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have launched investigations into the strike and its aftermath.
Some lawmakers are questioning whether the follow-up attack could constitute a violation of the laws of armed conflict, particularly if the survivors no longer posed a threat. Concerns about potential war-crime implications have been raised by both legal experts and former military officers.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a former Air Force JAG officer, explained the general legal standard during an interview with CNN. He noted that individuals who survive a ship’s destruction or who are no longer actively engaged in combat typically cannot be considered lawful targets.
“It’s a long-held rule that survivors of a ship attack are no longer combatants,” Graham said. He emphasized that the same principles apply to aircrew members in parachutes. “You’re out of the fight.”
Graham cautioned that definitive conclusions cannot be drawn until all the facts are known. He reiterated that the legal framework is clear, but the specifics of the Sept. 2 mission must be fully examined.
As investigations begin, lawmakers and military officials alike are preparing for what could become a major test of U.S. counter-narcotics strategy, command authority, and the boundaries of targeted lethal action.
