The controversy swirling around a U.S. military strike on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean on September 2, 2025, has erupted into a fierce debate in Washington, with lawmakers, defense officials, and the public all demanding answers. At the heart of the storm is a classified video showing a second missile strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage—an incident now under scrutiny for its legality and morality.
Calls for transparency have grown louder in recent days. On December 17, U.S. Representative Jason Crow, a Democrat from Colorado and a combat veteran, publicly demanded the release of the unedited video footage. "I believe this was an unlawful second strike," Crow told reporters after the House Armed Services Committee reviewed the video. "I saw no justification for why a second strike needed to be taken, and I think it was a violation of the law." Crow insisted the survivors "were not capable of threatening our service members" and argued that the public deserves to see the footage to "make their own determination," as reported by The Washington Post.
The incident has sparked multiple investigations. Both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees opened inquiries into the legality of the strikes earlier this month. The Pentagon, under the leadership of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has so far refused to release the video to the public, citing concerns about protecting intelligence sources and methods. Hegseth told reporters, "In keeping with long-standing…Department of Defense policy, of course, we're not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public." He added, "We're reviewing it right now to make sure sources [and] methods are not compromised. I mean, it's an ongoing operation….We've got operators out there doing this right now. So whatever we were to decide to release, we'd have to be very responsible about it. We're reviewing that right now."
Yet, this reasoning has not convinced all lawmakers. Representative Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, dismissed the Pentagon's classification rationale. "If they showed…just the portion that we saw, those two on the boat, it's no different [from] any of the dozen-plus videos they've already released," Smith argued on ABC's This Week. "The claim that releasing it would compromise 'sources and methods' is ridiculous." Smith believes the real reason for withholding the footage is political: "They don't want to release this video because they don't want people to see it."
The shifting explanations for the second strike have only fueled skepticism. Initially, Pentagon officials claimed the second strike was necessary to clear the wreckage and prevent hazards to navigation. Later, the rationale changed: survivors might have had a radio, might have been signaling for help, or possibly trying to recover the cocaine cargo. But, as Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut recounted on CBS's Face the Nation, "When you actually watch the video, you realize they don't have a radio and are barely hanging on to what remains of the boat." Himes concluded, "Any American who sees the video that I saw will see the United States military attacking shipwrecked sailors."
The legal stakes are high. According to the Defense Department's own Law of War Manual, "orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal." The Geneva Conventions further protect "members of the armed forces who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked," classifying them as hors de combat and off-limits for targeting. Critics, including some Democrats and legal experts, have suggested that the killings could constitute a war crime. The Department of Defense is now investigating Senator Mark Kelly's involvement, and the FBI has requested interviews with several lawmakers, including Crow.
But not all lawmakers see the incident as a violation of international law. Senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican from Alaska and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after viewing the video, "I support them doing it, but they have to get it right. I think so far they're getting it right." Sullivan pressed Admiral Frank Bradley, who ordered the second strike, during a classified hearing and was "satisfied with his answer." Sullivan did, however, stop short of supporting the public release of the video, explaining, "I'm going to leave that decision up to the Pentagon, if they think making these public somehow undermines sources and methods of intel collection."
Senator Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also defended the legality of the strike. He told reporters the survivors "looked at one point like they were trying to flip the boat back over, presumably to rescue its cargo and continue their mission." Cotton asserted, "It doesn't really matter what they were trying to do…That boat, its cargo, and those drug traffickers remained valid targets….It was entirely appropriate to strike the boat again to make sure that its cargo was destroyed. It is in no way a violation of the law of war."
President Donald Trump’s stance on transparency has wavered. On December 3, he told ABC’s Selina Wang, "I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we'd certainly release, no problem." However, just days later, Trump reversed his position, stating, "Whatever Hegseth wants to do is OK with me," and lashing out at reporters who pressed him on the issue. As of December 17, the video remains classified and unavailable to the public.
The incident has also deepened partisan divides. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska who does not sit on the relevant committees, voiced concerns about the administration's clarity and the reliability of information lawmakers have received. "What has concerned me about the boat strikes in the Caribbean have been that the mission has been perhaps not as clearly defined by the administration," she told reporters. Murkowski noted that colleagues from different parties who viewed the video came away with "vastly different" interpretations.
Meanwhile, the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act on December 17, a $900 billion bill that blocks parts of Secretary Hegseth’s travel budget until the Pentagon releases an unedited version of the video to the Armed Services Committees. The bill now awaits President Trump’s signature.
All of this unfolds against a backdrop of escalating tensions with Venezuela. President Trump announced a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers bound for Venezuela on December 17, and the U.S. recently seized a Venezuelan oil tanker, prompting Venezuela to file a complaint with the United Nations Security Council, calling the action "state piracy."
The debate over the September 2 strike has become a flashpoint for broader questions about military accountability, transparency, and the boundaries of presidential power. As lawmakers continue to spar over the facts and the footage remains locked away, the American public is left to wonder what really happened on that fateful day in the Caribbean—and what it means for the future of U.S. military conduct abroad.