WASHINGTON — The U.S. military’s internal procedures for targeting suspected drug traffickers at sea have come under renewed examination as senior military leaders prepare to testify before Congress about a deadly follow-up strike that killed two survivors during a September operation.
According to multiple U.S. officials, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had approved detailed contingency plans outlining how troops should respond if initial boat strikes left smugglers alive. The guidelines instructed service members to rescue survivors who were incapacitated or posed no threat — but permitted further lethal action if survivors attempted what the administration defined as “hostile acts,” such as radioing cartel associates.
Incident at the Center of the Debate
On Sept. 2, after a U.S. strike destroyed a suspected smuggling vessel, two people survived the blast. Officials say that one survivor used a radio to call for assistance. In response, Adm. Frank M. Bradley, the commander overseeing the mission, authorized a second strike that killed both survivors.
The decision has triggered widespread criticism, including allegations that the follow-up attack may constitute a war crime. Critics argue the survivors were shipwrecked and fleeing, not actively engaged in hostile action.
High-Profile Testimony Ahead
Adm. Bradley and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are scheduled to appear before lawmakers on Thursday. They are expected to defend the operation, insisting that the follow-up strike complied with both military policy and international law.
While officials acknowledge that the strike is only one part of President Donald Trump’s broader and legally contentious initiative to treat maritime drug smuggling as an act of war, the incident has emerged as a flashpoint, raising difficult questions about authority, accountability, and legality.
Questions Over Responsibility
The contingency plans approved by Defense Secretary Hegseth outlined the framework for dealing with survivors, but operational commanders were responsible for making instant decisions on the ground. Lawmakers are now seeking clarity:
– Was the second strike ordered strictly based on Admiral Bradley’s judgment?
– Or did Hegseth’s pre-approved rules effectively authorize lethal force in situations where it may not have been justified?
The answers could influence how Congress evaluates the legality of the strike and whether new restrictions will be imposed on maritime counter-narcotics missions.
A Legally Disputed Campaign
Since the Trump administration launched its aggressive maritime strategy, the U.S. military has targeted 21 vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific, killing 83 people. Supporters argue the operations disrupt violent trafficking networks. Critics counter that the policy blurs the line between law enforcement and warfare, exposing U.S. forces to legal and ethical risks.
The full implications of the Sept. 2 strike will be at the forefront of Thursday’s testimony — a moment that could shape not only military accountability but also the future of U.S. counter-drug operations at sea.
