A growing firestorm now surrounds Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Admiral Frank Bradley after a second U.S. strike on a drug trafficking vessel in the Caribbean reportedly killed two survivors from an earlier attack — a move that has sparked bipartisan outrage and raised the specter of potential war crimes.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Monday that Hegseth had authorized the Sept. 2 strikes against a narcoterrorist target, part of the Trump administration’s expanded campaign to combat drug trafficking by treating major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. But it was Admiral Bradley, Leavitt clarified, who ordered the controversial second strike — a targeted missile strike that killed two individuals clinging to the remains of a burning boat.
The report also effectively exonerates Admiral Bradley pic.twitter.com/907DgYRWcH
— Ryan Saavedra (@RyanSaavedra) December 2, 2025
The second strike, now under intense scrutiny, has emerged as a defining moment in the administration’s hardline narcoterrorism initiative. While Leavitt emphasized that Admiral Bradley acted “well within his authority and the law,” questions have poured in from both sides of the aisle about whether the killing of shipwrecked survivors constitutes a breach of the laws of war. Even President Trump, in an attempt to distance himself from the fallout, said Sunday that he would not have authorized the follow-up strike had he been fully briefed.
The New York Times later reported, citing five anonymous officials, that Hegseth did not give explicit instructions for what to do in the event of survivors. Crucially, the report suggests that Hegseth’s orders were not issued in response to surveillance footage of the survivors — contradicting claims that the second strike was a direct effort to comply with an alleged verbal order to “kill everybody.”
When the NYT is disputing the Washington Post, then you know the Washington Post must have screwed something up. https://t.co/UfdEkV4wOD
— Elliott Hamilton (@EHamiltonEsq) December 2, 2025
The ambiguity around the chain of command and rules of engagement is at the heart of the growing controversy. If Hegseth gave a broad authorization but left key decisions to field commanders, the question becomes: where does accountability begin and end? The Post’s reporting that Bradley acted on perceived intent — namely, to leave no survivors — could shift the legal and political burden in unforeseen ways.
This is not just about one strike or one boat. The Sept. 2 incident is part of a larger, more aggressive campaign that has already killed at least 80 suspected narcoterrorists across the Caribbean and Pacific. While the administration has argued these actions are justified under counterterrorism authorities, critics in Congress — including some Republicans — are raising concerns about oversight, legality, and the moral clarity of a campaign that now appears to blur the lines between combat and execution.
Hegseth, long seen as one of the administration’s more hawkish figures, is expected to face congressional scrutiny in the coming days. Investigative committees in both the House and Senate have signaled that inquiries are underway. Meanwhile, he is scheduled to attend a Cabinet meeting with President Trump on Tuesday — a gathering now poised to become a high-stakes moment for both men.
