Cart
0
Pentagon Faces Scrutiny Over Follow-On Strike in Caribbean
The Pentagon is under bipartisan investigation after reports revealed it conducted a follow-on strike on a drug-smuggling vessel despite knowing survivors remained aboard.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla )
The Pentagon was aware that survivors remained after a September attack on an alleged drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean Sea, yet the U.S. military still proceeded with a follow-up strike, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the mission publicly, said the rationale for the second strike was the military’s determination that the damaged vessel needed to be sunk. The Trump administration has maintained that all 11 people aboard were killed.
Gear Spotlight- What Our Readers Are Picking Up
Uncertainty remains over who specifically ordered the strikes and whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was involved, one source said. Those details have become central to mounting congressional investigations into whether the operation met legal standards. Lawmakers are expected to raise these questions Thursday during a classified briefing with Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, whom the administration identifies as the commander who ordered the second strike.
The Pentagon declined to comment Wednesday on the reported new details about the Sept. 2 attack.
Hegseth has come under increasing scrutiny over the department’s strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific particularly the follow-on strike that reportedly killed survivors. Some lawmakers and legal scholars argue such an action could violate both peacetime legal frameworks and laws governing armed conflict.
Hegseth has defended the operation as occurring in the “fog of war,” telling colleagues at a recent White House Cabinet meeting that he did not see survivors but also “didn’t stick around” for the rest of the mission. He has also said Bradley “made the right call” and had full authority to order the second strike.
President Donald Trump said Wednesday he is open to releasing video of the follow-on strike, as requested by Democratic lawmakers. “I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have we’d certainly release. No problem,” he told reporters.
The administration has argued that the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, though Congress has not authorized the use of military force in the region.
A separate strike on Sept. 15 led to the family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza filing a formal complaint with the leading human rights body in the Americas, asserting that his death was an extrajudicial killing carried out in violation of international human rights conventions.
The Sept. 2 follow-on strike was the first in what the administration describes as a counterdrug campaign that has now expanded to more than 20 known strikes with over 80 fatalities.
Lawmakers were not told about the existence of the follow-on strike in a classified briefing held shortly after the incident. It was disclosed only later, and the department’s explanations have frustrated members of national security committees in Congress.
In a rare bipartisan move, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees quickly launched investigations as concerns grow across party lines. Bradley is scheduled to appear Thursday in a classified session with the committees’ Republican chairs and Democratic ranking members.
And while lawmakers scrutinize the legality and oversight of military force at sea, some observers have noted how issues of command authority and operational clarity mirror challenges faced in other high-pressure environments. It’s a reminder that having essential gear secured and readily accessible matters much like the reliability of the Sig P320C OWB Holster by Blade-Tech, designed for stable, open-carry retention of a Sig Sauer P320C or M18. In debates over operational readiness, small details have a way of underscoring larger themes.
Editor’s Note:
This article summarizes reporting based on anonymous sources, official statements and recent congressional actions. Allegations about the follow-on strike, who ordered it and its legality remain under active investigation by congressional oversight committees and have not been adjudicated. The Pentagon and involved officials have disputed some accounts; the facts described here reflect current, public reporting and the claims made by those sources.
