On September 2, 2025, a U.S. military operation in the Caribbean Sea set off a political storm in Washington that is still reverberating months later. The operation, which involved four airstrikes on a suspicious boat allegedly carrying cocaine, resulted in the deaths of nine people in the first strike, two survivors in a second strike, and the sinking of the vessel in the third and fourth attacks. The incident, now at the heart of a fierce debate about transparency, legality, and America’s military posture in the region, has prompted bipartisan calls for the public release of unedited video footage—demands the Pentagon continues to resist.
According to the Associated Press, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed lawmakers on December 16, 2025, making it clear that the Pentagon would not release the full, unedited video of the September 2 strikes to the general public. He cited the need to protect sensitive military “sources and methods,” a point he reiterated after a closed-door briefing with senators. "Of course we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public," Hegseth told reporters, as quoted by Boston Herald.
While the public remains in the dark, members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees were scheduled to view the full video on December 17, 2025. Admiral Frank Bradley, who oversaw the operation and authorized the controversial second strike that killed the two survivors, was also expected to brief lawmakers. This special access for Congress comes after weeks of mounting pressure from both Democrats and Republicans, as well as growing scrutiny from the media and legal experts.
Democrats, in particular, have been vocal in their frustration. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did not mince words after a December 16 briefing, telling reporters, “The administration came to this briefing empty-handed. That’s the major question that we face. If they can’t be transparent on this, how can you trust their transparency on all the other issues swirling about in the Caribbean?” Senator Chris Coons echoed these concerns, noting that officials cited “classification concerns” but that such reasoning was difficult to reconcile with the Pentagon’s history of releasing edited strike videos. “It is hard to square the widespread routine prompt posting of detailed videos of every strike with a concern that posting a portion of the video of the first strike would violate a variety of classification concerns,” Coons remarked.
Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Naval officer, suggested that the administration’s real worry was public reaction. “Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it,” Kelly said, according to The Hill.
The controversy over the September 2 operation is just one facet of a much broader U.S. military campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. As AP reports, the campaign has resulted in at least 95 deaths in 25 known strikes on vessels suspected of drug smuggling. The Trump administration has defended the campaign as a vital counter-drug mission. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters, “The campaign is a counter-drug mission that is focused on dismantling the infrastructure of these terrorist organizations that are operating in our hemisphere, undermining the security of Americans, killing Americans, poisoning Americans.”
Yet, the legality of the strikes—especially the killing of the two survivors—has been called into question by both lawmakers and legal scholars. John Yoo, a law professor at Berkeley who helped craft post-9/11 legal arguments for the Bush administration, weighed in with a stark assessment: “If it’s not a war against Venezuela, then we’re using armed force against civilians who are just committing crimes. Then this question, this worry, becomes really pronounced. You know, you’re shooting civilians. There’s no military purpose for it.”
The Trump administration’s actions have not been limited to maritime strikes. On December 16, President Trump announced a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers into Venezuela, a move that further escalated tensions with the regime of President Nicolás Maduro. The U.S. has also deployed warships, flown fighter jets near Venezuelan airspace, and seized an oil tanker in what officials describe as a campaign to undermine Maduro’s government and curb drug trafficking.
Maduro, for his part, has accused the U.S. of using military power to force him from office. On a weekly state television show, he criticized the United Nations for not condemning what he called an “act of piracy” against a private ship carrying Venezuelan oil. His government, he said, still did not know the whereabouts of the tanker’s crew.
Despite the administration’s defense of its actions, lawmakers from both parties have expressed unease about the lack of clear objectives and transparency. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, defended the legality of the campaign but pressed for clarity on the administration’s ultimate goals. “I want to address the question, is it the goal to take him [Maduro] out? If it’s not the goal to take him out, you’re making a mistake,” Graham said.
Some Republicans, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, have rallied behind the strikes, calling them “certainly appropriate” and “necessary to protect the United States and our interests.” Others, however, have joined Democrats in demanding more information. Senator Rand Paul, a frequent critic of military overreach, argued, “The American public ought to see it. I think shooting unarmed people floundering in the water, clinging to wreckage, is not who we are as a people.”
The Pentagon now faces legislative pressure to increase transparency. Language in the annual military policy bill threatens to withhold a quarter of Secretary Hegseth’s travel budget if unedited video of the strikes is not provided to Congressional Armed Services Committees. Still, the administration has drawn a sharp line between sharing information with lawmakers and releasing it to the public. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized this approach, saying, “They just don’t want to reveal the part that suggests war crimes.”
For months, Congress received little more than sporadic updates about the campaign, sometimes learning of strikes only after the Pentagon posted edited videos on social media. Now, with the controversy over the September 2 strike showing no signs of fading, the debate has become a litmus test for the administration’s broader approach to military transparency and the rule of law.
As lawmakers on Capitol Hill prepare to review the full, unedited video, questions about the campaign’s legality, effectiveness, and ultimate goals remain unanswered. The American public, for now, must rely on the accounts of those behind closed doors—a reality that continues to fuel suspicion and debate.
