The Trump administration has completely changed its story about a deadly September strike in the Caribbean. They now admit that a second strike happened against survivors, but they say it was done in “self-defense.” According to MS Now, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Monday that the second deadly strike did happen.
This is a major reversal. The administration had spent the whole weekend denying reports that the U.S. military hit a suspected drug trafficking boat and then immediately launched a second strike when they saw survivors. Leavitt said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had authorized an admiral to carry out multiple strikes on the vessel.
The justification for the follow-up attack is the wildest part. Leavitt claimed the second strike was done in “self-defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests.” How could helpless survivors hanging onto wreckage in the ocean possibly threaten the U.S. after being hit by the most powerful military in the world? Leavitt said, “Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”
The reporting reveals a disturbing pattern of events
This admission comes after intense reporting from major outlets. The Washington Post reported Friday, citing two people with direct knowledge of the operation, that a Special Operations commander overseeing the September 2 attack ordered a second strike specifically against two survivors who were “clinging to the smoldering wreck.” The sources said this second strike was meant to fulfill a spoken directive from Hegseth.
Legal experts are raising major concerns about this order. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former top Justice Department lawyer under President George W. Bush, wrote Friday that there is “no conceivable legal justification” for the order described in the Post report.
He noted that the Department of Defense Law of War Manual forbids declaring that “no quarter will be given.” This means refusing to spare anyone’s life, even people who clearly can’t defend themselves or want to surrender. The situation has drawn attention to how international law applies in controversial military operations.
A group called “The Former JAGs Working Group” shared similar concerns in a statement published by Just Security. They said if the U.S. military operation is a “non-international armed conflict,” as the Trump administration claims, then orders to “kill everybody” or to “double-tap” a target to kill survivors are “clearly illegal under international law. In short, they are war crimes.”
If the operation isn’t legally considered an armed conflict at all, things get even worse for the administration. The Former JAGs said those orders to kill helpless civilians could lead to prosecution under U.S. law for murder for everyone “from SECDEF down to the individual who pulled the trigger.”
The Trump administration has been justifying these Caribbean operations by claiming they target terrorist groups. They say the strikes are part of a “non-international armed conflict” and claim to have killed more than 80 people across more than 20 strikes on vessels they say were carrying drugs from Venezuela. President Trump himself has distanced himself from the second strike, claiming he knew nothing about it.
Published: Dec 2, 2025 01:59 pm