Shortly after the Trump administration carried out its first publicly acknowledged strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean in early September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praised the operation’s precision on Fox News’ Fox & Friends.
“I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing and we knew exactly who they represented,” Hegseth said, adding that the occupants were gang members from Venezuela who were “trying to poison our country with illicit drugs.”
Shifting Official Narratives
Three months later, the operation has become one of the most contentious episodes of the second Trump administration. Reporting revealed that a second set of strikes followed the initial attack and apparently killed survivors — a development that critics say could amount to a war crime. Equally notable is how the administration’s account of the incident has changed repeatedly.
Early statements about the boat’s destination were inconsistent. On Sept. 2, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the vessel was “probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean.” The next day, administration officials and the president described the drugs as destined for the United States. Rubio later amended his remarks to say the boat was “headed towards, eventually, the United States.”
New Details From Closed Briefings
More recent reporting by CNN indicated that Adm. Frank Bradley, who oversaw the operation, told lawmakers in closed briefings that the intercepted vessel was actually en route to rendezvous with a larger ship bound for Suriname. That route is more commonly associated with shipments headed to Europe than to the U.S., according to a State Department report on the international narcotics trade.
“Suriname is a transit country for South American cocaine, the majority of which is likely destined for Europe,” the State Department wrote in March.
Bradley reportedly told lawmakers there remained a possibility the drugs could ultimately reach the United States, but that circumspect, indirect trajectory contrasts with initial public claims that the boat posed an imminent threat to the U.S.
Contradictory Justifications and Denials
Supporters of the strikes have adjusted their justifications. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton acknowledged he had not seen firm evidence the boat was headed to the U.S., but argued the killings could be justified because the passengers were members of a designated terrorist organization. Meanwhile, the White House and Pentagon initially issued forceful denials when media outlets reported on a follow-up strike that allegedly finished off survivors. Hegseth called the reporting “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory,” and other officials said the narrative was false.
Those denials did not hold. The White House later confirmed that a second strike occurred.
Who Authorized Lethal Action?
A central unresolved question is who authorized lethal follow-up action and what intelligence supported such a decision. Some early reports were misread to suggest Hegseth gave a real-time order to execute survivors; the reporting more consistently indicates he had sought a mission that would be lethal. CNN reported that Bradley understood his mission to include killing all 11 men aboard the intercepted vessel.
Hegseth’s own account of his involvement has shifted. Though he initially said he “watched it live,” he later qualified that he did not remain involved through the later stages and was not present when it became clear there were survivors and a decision about follow-up action was required.
Video, Transparency, and Legal Questions
President Trump signaled willingness to release fuller video of the operation, but the footage has not been made public. Hegseth said the administration was “reviewing the process” and would be cautious about any release. That caution stands in contrast to the administration’s prompt release of video from initial strikes posted on social media the same day and other strike footage released subsequently.
Officials have argued the survivors still posed a threat, saying they may have been radioing for help. But CNN reported that Bradley told lawmakers the survivors were not in a position to make a distress call, and Sen. Cotton said he had seen no evidence of radio use by survivors.
The result is a patchwork of public statements and closed-door briefings that produce a confused and evolving record of what happened, why it happened, and whether U.S. forces acted within legal bounds. The strikes are part of a larger campaign that has killed more than 80 people, raising broader questions about oversight, intelligence quality, and accountability.
