U.S. lawmakers from both parties are pressing the Trump administration for detailed information about military strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean, following allegations that a follow-up attack was ordered to eliminate survivors of an initial strike.
Republican-led committees with Pentagon oversight have pledged to conduct “vigorous oversight” of the U.S. boat strikes in Caribbean waters after a Friday report raised serious legal questions about the operations.
It was reported Friday that a U.S. strike on a boat on September 2 left two survivors, but that a second attack was subsequently carried out to comply with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged orders to “kill everybody” on board. The report has not been independently verified.
Hegseth rejected the report as “fake news,” and President Donald Trump stated Sunday that he believes his defense secretary “100 percent.”
Recent weeks have seen expanded U.S. military presence in the Caribbean with a series of lethal strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia. The administration characterizes these operations as anti-narcotics efforts conducted in self-defense against vessels transporting illicit drugs toward the United States.
More than 80 people have been killed in these operations since early September, according to available information.
The Washington Post report, which the administration disputes, alleged that Secretary Hegseth gave a spoken directive to “kill everybody” on board one vessel, and that a Special Operations commander overseeing the operation ordered a second strike to comply with those instructions.
The Trump administration has attempted to justify Caribbean operations by claiming it is engaged in a non-international armed conflict with alleged drug traffickers. Under the Geneva Conventions governing such conflicts, targeting wounded participants is prohibited. The conventions require that wounded combatants should be apprehended and provided medical care rather than attacked.
Lawmakers from both parties appearing on Sunday talk shows expressed support for congressional reviews of the boat strikes. While noting they could not confirm whether the allegations were accurate, they acknowledged that attacking survivors of an initial strike would raise profound legal concerns.
“This rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true,” said Democratic Senator Tim Kaine during a CBS Face the Nation appearance.
Republican Representative Mike Turner, a former Intelligence Committee chairman, acknowledged Congress lacks confirmation that a follow-up strike occurred but agreed such an action would be problematic. “Obviously if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act,” Turner told CBS.
The Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee announced Friday its intention to conduct “vigorous oversight” on the strikes. Committee Chair Senator Roger Wicker and ranking Democrat Senator Jack Reed issued a joint statement acknowledging awareness of recent reports and the Department of Defense’s initial response.
“The Committee is aware of recent news reports and the Department of Defense’s initial response regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” their statement read. “The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”
The House Armed Services Committee followed with its own statement indicating bipartisan action to gather a complete accounting of the questioned operation.
Hegseth responded to accusations on social media, characterizing them as “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory.” He asserted that the boat strikes were “lawful under both US and international law,” adding that “every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”
President Trump defended his defense secretary while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday. “He said he did not say that. And I believe him 100%,” Trump stated. The president indicated the administration would investigate the matter and added, “I wouldn’t have wanted that, not a second strike.”
Venezuela’s National Assembly condemned the boat strikes Sunday and pledged a “rigorous and thorough investigation” into allegations of a second attack that purportedly killed two survivors. The Venezuelan government has accused the United States of stoking regional tensions with the goal of toppling its government.
Trump confirmed Sunday he recently spoke with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro but declined to characterize the conversation beyond saying, “I wouldn’t say it went well or badly. It was a phone call.”
International law governing maritime operations in international waters presents complex questions regarding these strikes. The United States is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, though U.S. military legal advisers have previously stated the U.S. should “act in a manner consistent with its provisions.”
That convention establishes that countries should not interfere with vessels operating in international waters. Limited exceptions exist allowing states to seize ships, such as during “hot pursuit” when a vessel is chased from a country’s territorial waters into the high seas.
Professor Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast, an expert on international law, noted that “force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures,” highlighting the legal complexity surrounding the use of deadly force in maritime interdiction operations.
The distinction between stopping vessels suspected of drug trafficking and conducting military strikes that kill all occupants raises significant questions under both domestic and international law. The classification of these operations as armed conflict, the proportionality of force used, and the treatment of survivors all present legal issues that congressional oversight will likely examine.
