The White House on Monday defended a US admiral’s decision to carry out multiple strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling boat in September, saying the action had been authorized by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, even as critics questioned the legality of a reported follow-up attack on survivors.
A Washington Post report said a second strike was ordered to kill two survivors of an initial hit and that the order reflected an instruction by Hegseth that “everyone be killed.” President Donald Trump said on Sunday he would not have wanted a second strike and that Hegseth denied issuing an order to kill survivors.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Hegseth authorized Admiral Frank Bradley to carry out the strikes on Sept. 2. Leavitt characterized the action as a lawful use of force in self-defense, carried out in international waters to “ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.” She said the strikes were consistent with the law of armed conflict and noted the administration has designated the narcotics traffickers involved as foreign terrorist organizations.
Since September, US forces have conducted at least 19 strikes against suspected drug-running vessels in the Caribbean and off Latin America’s Pacific coast, according to officials, actions that have reportedly killed at least 76 people. Lawmakers from both parties have promised investigations, and legal experts and former military lawyers have raised alarms about the scope and legality of the campaign.
International humanitarian law bars attacks on persons who are hors de combat. The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual says shipwrecked people cannot be knowingly targeted and must receive medical care unless they show hostile intent or try to flee. Laura Dickinson, a law professor at George Washington University, told reporters that many legal scholars do not consider the boat strikes to constitute armed conflict; outside of armed conflict, lethal force is generally permitted only as a last resort. She said ordering the killing of survivors could amount to murder and, in an armed conflict context, would likely be a war crime.
The JAGs Working Group, an organization of former military lawyers, called any order to kill survivors “patently illegal,” arguing service members are obliged to refuse unlawful commands and that those who follow such an order should be prosecuted.
Hegseth, who has publicly defended the admiral involved, posted on the social platform X that Admiral Bradley is “an American hero” and said he gives Bradley his “100% support,” standing by the admiral’s combat decisions on the Sept. 2 mission and subsequent operations.
A senior US official said Trump discussed with top advisers a coordinated pressure campaign against Venezuela. The president has suggested the possibility of broader military steps, saying at one point that Venezuelan airspace and surrounding areas ought to be considered “closed in its entirety,” a remark that provoked concern in Caracas. Trump also confirmed he had recently spoken with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro but provided no details.
The administration frames its measures as efforts to disrupt what it alleges are Maduro’s ties to drug trafficking, which US officials say have contributed to a domestic overdose crisis; Maduro denies those charges. Reuters and other outlets have reported that US planners are considering a range of options, including efforts to oust Maduro, and that the US military has been prepared for an expanded phase of operations after a major buildup in the Caribbean and months of strikes. The White House has also authorized covert CIA activities in Venezuela, according to reports.
