In a week marked by shifting statements and mounting political pressure, President Donald Trump has reversed his stance on the public release of controversial military footage depicting a deadly follow-up strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat off the coast of Venezuela. The incident, which occurred on September 2, 2025, has ignited fierce debate in Congress, raised questions about the legality of U.S. military actions in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, and prompted lawmakers to take the extraordinary step of leveraging the Pentagon’s budget to demand greater transparency.
Just days ago, President Trump appeared to welcome the idea of releasing the full video of the second strike, telling reporters, according to CBS News, “I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have, we’d certainly release, no problem.” However, on Monday, December 8, 2025, he abruptly walked back those remarks, insisting, “I didn’t say that. That’s — you said that, I didn’t say that.” Trump further clarified, “Whatever Pete Hegseth wants to do is OK with me,” deferring the decision to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. This reversal came after Hegseth himself declined to commit to releasing the Pentagon’s footage, stating at the Reagan National Defense Forum, “We’re reviewing the process, and we’ll see. Whatever we were to decide to release, we’d have to be very responsible about reviewing that right now.” (The New York Times).
The video at the center of the controversy captures a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat initially attacked by U.S. forces. The Pentagon released a 29-second clip of the initial strike on September 2, which reportedly killed most of the boat’s crew and capsized the vessel. However, the full footage—including the subsequent strike on the survivors—remains classified. According to CNN and Politico, this lack of transparency has drawn bipartisan calls for accountability, with lawmakers from both parties demanding to see the unedited video and questioning the administration’s legal justification for the operation.
Last week, in an attempt to quell criticism, the Pentagon showed the full video to select members of Congress during a closed-door briefing. The response was sharply divided along partisan lines. Democrats who viewed the footage described it as “shocking” and said it showed the two men “barely alive, much less engaging in hostilities,” at the time of the second strike, according to Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who spoke on CBS’s Face the Nation. Some lawmakers and outside experts have even suggested the follow-up strike could constitute a war crime and a violation of the U.S. military’s code of conduct, given that the survivors appeared to pose no immediate threat.
Republicans, on the other hand, have largely defended the administration’s actions. According to Politico, several top Republicans who viewed the unedited footage contend it vindicates the administration’s position that the strikes were justified as part of the broader war on drugs. The administration maintains that the individuals targeted were “narco-terrorists” responsible for bringing drugs into the United States—a claim some legal experts and Democratic lawmakers challenge, arguing that drug-runners should be apprehended and arrested by the Coast Guard rather than targeted with lethal military force.
Amid the uproar, Congress has taken a dramatic step to force the Pentagon’s hand. Lawmakers quietly inserted a provision into the final draft of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would withhold a quarter of Defense Secretary Hegseth’s travel budget until the Pentagon delivers unedited videos of strikes conducted against suspected drug-smuggling boats in the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (Politico). The provision, which is expected to pass both chambers without changes, specifically demands footage of strikes “conducted against designated terrorist organizations” and requires the Pentagon to deliver all overdue reports—including those on lessons learned from the war in Ukraine—before releasing the full travel budget.
The NDAA language reflects the growing frustration among lawmakers over the Pentagon’s lack of transparency. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker expressed a desire for all committee members to see the footage, while House Armed Services ranking member Rep. Adam Smith said the video contradicts how Hegseth and other Republicans have described the incident. “If they release the video, then everything that the Republicans are saying will clearly be portrayed to be completely false,” Smith said on ABC’s “This Week.” He called for a full-scale investigation, including public hearings and a thorough review of the chain of command and written documentation related to the strike.
The controversy comes against the backdrop of an aggressive U.S. military campaign in the region. Since September 2, 2025, the U.S. has carried out more than 20 strikes targeting alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, resulting in the deaths of at least 87 people, according to figures cited by multiple outlets including CBS News, The New York Times, and Politico. The administration argues these actions are justified as part of its war on drugs, but critics say the legal rationale—reportedly drafted by the Justice Department—has not been made public, and the Pentagon’s account of where the targeted boats were headed has shifted multiple times.
Secretary Hegseth has publicly backed the decision to kill the survivors, though he noted that Admiral Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, made the final call on the second strike. Bradley and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine briefed lawmakers last week and showed them the unedited footage, but the disagreement over what the video reveals remains unresolved. The White House has insisted the military’s actions were legal, but has yet to release the full legal justification or the complete video to the public.
Calls for greater transparency are growing louder. Lawmakers from both parties are pushing for the Pentagon to release the unedited footage, and some are warning that failure to do so could undermine public trust in the military and the administration. Meanwhile, outside legal experts continue to question the legitimacy of targeting drug smugglers with lethal force, arguing that such actions may violate international law and established military protocols.
As Congress prepares to vote on the NDAA and the Pentagon faces mounting pressure to release the controversial footage, the debate over the September 2 strike has become a flashpoint in the broader conversation about the limits of military power, the rule of law, and the need for government accountability. With more than 80 lives lost in the ongoing anti-smuggling campaign, the stakes could hardly be higher—for policymakers, for the military, and for the American public seeking answers.
The coming weeks will likely determine whether Congress’s demand for transparency yields the full story behind the strikes, or whether the administration’s insistence on secrecy prevails. Either way, the issue has already left a mark on the national debate over how America wages its wars—and how much the public has a right to know.
