The Trump administration has defended a controversial program that targets small vessels suspected of smuggling drugs from South America to the United States, even as officials offer conflicting accounts about who ordered follow-up strikes that killed survivors seen on a burning boat. The mixed messages have raised legal and political questions about authorization and responsibility.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he authorized and watched the first strike on Sept. 2 but did not observe the later rounds that sank the vessel and killed people still visible in the water. Speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Hegseth said he viewed the initial attack live, then moved on to other duties; he said he later learned that Adm. Frank M. Bradley, whom he described as having full authority, had ordered the subsequent strikes and that Bradley made the decision to sink the boat and “eliminate the threat.”
Hegseth’s effort to distance himself from the later decision drew swift criticism. Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, called it a self-protective maneuver and argued to NPR that a defense secretary who issues dubious orders and then pins blame on subordinates is failing to provide leadership. Several military lawyers and former JAG officers warn that firing on civilians or people attempting to surrender could constitute war crimes if an armed conflict exists.
The Justice Department provided Congress with a legal memo asserting the United States is engaged in a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels and that the strikes fall within the laws of war. Critics say the memo is internally inconsistent: it portrays narcoterrorist organizations as armed threats while also suggesting the administration need not treat the campaign as a war requiring explicit congressional authorization.
Reporting in The Washington Post indicated the Sept. 2 incident involved two separate sets of strikes and that survivors of the first attack were visible when they were hit again and killed. Hegseth initially labeled that reporting fake but later confirmed its essential details.
Human Rights Watch’s Washington director, Sarah Yager, rejected the premise that the U.S. is at war with traffickers, calling the killings murder rather than wartime actions and warning that treating policing as warfare erodes protections for civilians. Supporters, including President Trump and Hegseth, defended the campaign: Hegseth said there is evidence to label targets “narcoterrorists” but has declined to publicly release that evidence, and Trump has claimed the strikes saved hundreds of thousands of lives — a figure critics say far exceeds annual U.S. overdose deaths and doesn’t align with how fentanyl typically enters the country.
Sen. Rand Paul shared a letter indicating that about 21% of Coast Guard interdictions find no drugs, raising concerns that lethal actions could be taken in error. At the Cabinet meeting Trump said he relies on Hegseth for operational information and was not involved in the second strike, though Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said overall direction of the strikes rests with the secretary and the president.
Questions over the legal justification, who gave specific orders, and whether service members could face prosecution are expected to intensify when Adm. Bradley testifies before Congress.