Washington: The White House on Monday offered its strongest defence yet of a U.S. naval commander who authorised a series of deadly strikes on a vessel believed to be tied to Venezuelan narcotics trafficking, insisting the operation was lawful and properly approved even as critics raise alarms over the targeting of survivors.
The incident, which unfolded on September 2 in international waters, involved multiple strikes on a small craft suspected of smuggling drugs. According to earlier reporting, a follow-up strike was ordered after the initial blast left at least two people alive in the water—an action that has since drawn intense scrutiny from legal experts and lawmakers.
President Donald Trump, speaking over the weekend, distanced himself from any directive to eliminate survivors and said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had denied issuing such an order. But on Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Hegseth had formally empowered Admiral Frank Bradley to carry out the operation.
“Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” Leavitt told reporters. “He operated squarely within his lawful authorities to ensure the vessel was neutralized and that the threat it posed to the United States was removed.”
Leavitt insisted the mission was an act of self-defense carried out against individuals the administration labels as members of foreign terrorist organizations. She emphasized that the engagement occurred in international waters and aligned with the law of armed conflict.
The Pentagon has launched at least 19 similar strikes since early September against suspected narcotics-trafficking boats operating in the Caribbean and along Latin America’s Pacific coastline—operations that have left more than 70 people dead. Despite their frequency, the legality of these missions has become a mounting point of debate on Capitol Hill, with members of both parties demanding oversight hearings.
International humanitarian law generally forbids the targeting of shipwrecked or incapacitated individuals. The Defense Department’s own Law of War Manual directs U.S. forces to protect such persons unless they pose an imminent threat.
Legal scholars say that standard is unlikely to have been met. Laura Dickinson, a professor of law at George Washington University, said many experts do not believe these interdictions constitute an armed conflict in the first place. If that view prevails, she said, lethal force would be permissible only under the narrowest circumstances.
“Outside of armed conflict, killing survivors would amount to murder,” Dickinson explained, adding that even during war, a deliberate strike on those no longer participating in hostilities “would almost certainly be treated as a war crime.”
Former military attorneys have been equally blunt. The JAGs Working Group, a consortium of retired judge advocates, called the alleged order to kill survivors “patently illegal,” arguing that service members have an obligation to refuse such commands and that those who carry them out should face prosecution.
Hegseth, writing on X, stood firmly behind Admiral Bradley, praising him as “an American hero” and saying he fully supports Bradley’s decisions “on the September 2 mission and all others since.”
A senior U.S. official said Trump on Monday held discussions with advisers about the administration’s broader pressure strategy toward Venezuela, though it remains unclear whether the controversy surrounding the boat strike will alter that approach.
The Pentagon has not announced whether it will conduct a formal review of the September 2 incident, but pressure for a transparent accounting continues to build.
