The U.S. military’s September 2, 2025, airstrike on a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean has ignited a fierce political and legal firestorm, with mounting bipartisan scrutiny and allegations of potential war crimes. As details continue to emerge from classified briefings and public statements, the incident has exposed deep divisions in Washington over the conduct and justification of America’s campaign against narco-terrorism in the region.
According to NBC News and The Washington Post, the operation began when U.S. intelligence identified a boat carrying 11 individuals, allegedly tied to the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua narco-terrorist organization. Admiral Frank M. Bradley, head of Joint Special Operations Command, testified before lawmakers on December 4 that each person aboard was on a U.S. internal list of narco-terrorists, making them eligible for lethal targeting. “We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented — and that was Tren de Aragua, a narco-terrorist organization designated by the United States, trying to poison our country with illicit drugs,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a Fox & Friends interview the day after the strike.
The first airstrike reportedly destroyed the vessel and killed most of its occupants. However, controversy erupted when it was revealed that a second strike was ordered against two survivors clinging to the wreckage. Legal and military experts, referencing the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual, have argued that attacking incapacitated or shipwrecked combatants who abstain from hostilities constitutes a war crime. The manual explicitly forbids such actions, citing firing upon shipwreck survivors as a “clearly illegal” order that should be refused.
Admiral Bradley, who ordered the second strike, told lawmakers that the survivors were still considered legitimate targets, as they could potentially call for backup to retrieve the smuggled cocaine. According to TIME, Bradley said, “Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way.” However, after viewing a video of the attack in a closed-door congressional session, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) expressed deep unease: “What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, [who] were killed by the United States.”
The controversy deepened after The Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Hegseth ordered the military to “kill everybody” on the boat, a claim both Hegseth and the White House have denied. Hegseth stated he had left for another meeting before the second strike was ordered, and Admiral Bradley, in testimony to lawmakers, confirmed there had not been a direct “kill them all” or “grant no quarter” order from the Secretary. Still, the sequence of events and shifting accounts have fueled suspicions and calls for accountability.
Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), have been vocal in their condemnation. Thanedar told Fox News, “This secretary has to go. He’s incompetent. He’s, you know, violated — he has committed war crimes. He must go.” Thanedar has pledged to file articles of impeachment against Hegseth. On the other hand, some Republicans have defended the strikes as lawful and necessary. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) argued, “They were exactly what we would expect our military commanders to do.” Yet, others like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have called for more transparency and requested Hegseth testify under oath about the orders given.
Adding to the complexity, the Trump Administration has justified the strikes by labeling Venezuelan cartels as terror organizations and asserting the boats posed a direct threat to Americans. President Trump claimed a 91 percent reduction in drugs coming through sea routes since the strikes, and insisted the traffickers were “under the control” of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, heading to the United States. However, testimony from Admiral Bradley and U.S. intelligence reports challenge this narrative. According to TIME and CNN, the targeted boat was actually en route to Suriname, where the drugs were likely to be transferred to a larger vessel, with most such shipments destined for Europe rather than the U.S. The U.S. State Department’s 2025 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report states, “Suriname is a transit country for South American cocaine, the majority of which is likely destined for Europe.”
Since the September 2 incident, the U.S. military has conducted 22 similar strikes, resulting in at least 86 deaths in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. The campaign, intended to disrupt narco-terrorist operations, has become a lightning rod for criticism from both legal scholars and lawmakers across the aisle. Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he was “deeply disturbed” by the classified briefing, while the Senate Armed Services Committee as a whole has vowed “vigorous oversight” to determine what occurred.
The Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General further complicated matters when it released an 84-page report on December 3 criticizing Secretary Hegseth’s role in a separate controversial encrypted chat regarding possible strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. The report found that Hegseth jeopardized the lives of U.S. service members and violated department policy, though the Department of Defense claimed the report exonerated him. Hegseth dismissed the findings as partisan.
As the debate rages, the White House has continued to defend the strikes as acts of self-defense amid escalating tensions with Venezuela. Yet, the lack of transparency—particularly regarding the identities of those killed and the evidence that the boats were carrying narcotics—has left many questions unanswered. Lawmakers, legal experts, and the public are left grappling with the moral and strategic implications of the U.S. military’s actions in the Caribbean. Was the campaign a necessary blow against narco-terrorism, or did it cross the line into unlawful violence?
With investigations ongoing in both houses of Congress and calls for accountability growing louder, the September 2 strike and its aftermath have become a defining test of the rules, ethics, and transparency governing America’s counter-narcotics operations abroad. The outcome will likely shape not only the future of U.S. military engagement in the region but also the nation’s standing in the international community when it comes to upholding the laws of war.
