U.S. lawmakers are demanding answers after learning the military opened fire on two people clinging to the wreckage of a boat allegedly carrying drugs during a controversial campaign in international waters near Venezuela. The incident, which occurred on September 2, 2025, represents a significant and deadly escalation in tactics under President Donald Trump's second-term command.
Scrutiny Over a Deadly New Tactic
The broader military campaign, which has so far destroyed more than 20 boats and killed over 80 people, is now under intense congressional scrutiny. During briefings this past week, Navy Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, who ordered the strikes, detailed the events to lawmakers overseeing national security committees.
The initial strike targeted a vessel allegedly carrying cocaine. However, a follow-up attack was ordered minutes later. According to briefings, two shirtless individuals were seen waving and clinging to a floating piece of the wreckage. Admiral Bradley stated the rationale for the second strike was to destroy cocaine bales believed to still be in the hull, preventing their recovery by cartel members.
Democratic Rep. Adam Smith described the scene as "deeply concerning," stating the survivors were "drifting in the water — until the missiles come and kill them." In contrast, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton argued that video showed the survivors trying to flip the wreckage, which he interpreted as them trying to "stay in the fight," making them justifiable targets.
The Legal Battlefield
At the heart of the investigation is a dramatic legal shift by the Trump administration. A classified, roughly 40-page legal opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, signed on September 5, 2025—three days after the attack—forms the entire basis for the operation. This opinion redefines drugs and smugglers en route to the U.S. as terrorist threats, allowing military force under rules governing the global war on terror.
This departs radically from traditional practice, where drug interdiction is handled by law enforcement agencies like the Coast Guard. Legal experts like Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer, argue that under the laws of armed conflict, "The people in the boat... are not fighters. All they are is transporting drugs."
Lawmakers discovered that key military lawyers for the commands involved did not have access to this legal opinion until mid-November, and Admiral Bradley admitted he had not personally read the entire document.
A Defining Moment and Ongoing Campaign
The congressional probe is unfolding as a defining test for the U.S. military under Trump. Lawmakers are pressing for the public release of the legal opinion and the written execute order for the operation, which includes the rules of engagement. They also seek to understand verbal communications from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and want to question Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, who is retiring early as commander of U.S. forces in the region.
Despite the controversy, the campaign continues defiantly. Immediately after last week's briefings concluded, the military announced its 22nd strike, killing four more people and bringing the total death toll to at least 87. Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, stated the briefing "confirmed my worst fears," vowing that the investigation is only beginning.
The outcome of this inquiry will not only test the scope of longstanding laws of war but also influence the tense standoff between the U.S. and the government of Venezuela.
