Hot Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

White House defends follow-up boat strike as Trump weighs action on Venezuela


The White House on Monday acknowledged that U.S. forces carried out a second strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel in the Gulf region earlier this year—an action officials had previously denied and one that is now prompting bipartisan scrutiny and multiple congressional investigations.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Adm. Frank Bradley authorized U.S. personnel to strike the vessel again on Sept. 2 after the initial attack left the boat burning and two people still alive. She said the additional strike was conducted in “self-defense to protect Americans” and was legally justified under President Donald Trump’s earlier designation of major drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

“Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Leavitt said. “The president has the right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America, if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate, which is what they are doing.”

The incident came under heightened scrutiny after The Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had instructed troops to “kill everybody” prior to the mission. According to the report, a U.S. commanding officer—allegedly acting on Hegseth’s directive—approved the follow-up strike while two survivors clung to the burning vessel. Hegseth has rejected the claim, calling it fabricated.

“Fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland,” he said.

Leavitt also denied the Post report, saying, “I saw that quoted in a Washington Post story. I would reject that the secretary of war ever said that. However, the president has made it quite clear that if narco-terrorists, again, are trafficking illegal drugs towards the United States, he has the authority to kill them.”

Concerns Over Possible War Crime

Even before the White House conceded that a second strike occurred, lawmakers from both parties voiced serious concerns about its legality. Under international humanitarian law, incapacitated enemy combatants are considered hors de combat—no longer part of the fight—and cannot be targeted.

Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said on CBS’s Face the Nation that such an attack would be “very serious” and “completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress,” noting that an investigation was underway.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., similarly warned on CNN that the reported follow-up strike would constitute a war crime if confirmed. “I’ve got serious concerns about anybody in that, you know, chain of command stepping over a line that they should never step over,” Kelly said. “We are not Russia. We’re not Iraq. We hold ourselves to a very high standard of professionalism.”

The Sept. 2 strike marked the first lethal U.S. action against suspected drug-carrying boats in the region and resulted in 11 deaths.

Trump Distances Himself

President Trump, asked about the second strike aboard Air Force One on Sunday, said he “wouldn’t have wanted” a follow-up attack and would investigate further.

“The first strike was very lethal, it was fine,” Trump said. “I’m going to find out about it, but Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.”

The president is also weighing broader policy options toward Venezuela, amid concerns that maritime drug-trafficking routes connected to Venezuelan networks may expand.

Both the House and Senate have launched inquiries into the Pentagon’s chain of command decisions, the legal basis for the strike, and whether internal protocols governing lethal force were violated.

As lawmakers press for answers, the administration continues to defend the mission as part of a broader effort to disrupt narcotics trafficking. But the admission of a second strike—and uncertainty surrounding who ordered it—has intensified questions about oversight, accountability, and the boundaries of wartime authority in counter-narcotics operations.