As the White House on Monday admitted that the military conducted a second strike on an alleged drug vessel after the first left survivors, Congress appeared poised to launch perhaps its most aggressive oversight of the Trump Administration this year, as lawmakers from both parties expressed concerns that the U.S. was guilty of a war crime.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
“It’s a criminal offense—war crimes or murder are criminal offenses,” Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Armed Services Committee, told TIME. Referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s role in the strikes, Blumenthal added, “Hegseth doesn’t have the immunity that the President of the United States does.”
Lawmakers from both parties were raising the term “war crime” on Monday, as pressure mounts on the Trump Administration to release military video evidence and explain the legal basis for its escalating campaign in the Caribbean.
In the Senate, the calls for oversight were coalescing around Senator Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and has already directed an inquiry to the Pentagon and pledged “vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.” Several Senate Democrats told TIME on Monday that they have confidence in Wicker leading the investigation into the strike, but urged him to move quickly.
Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii suggested that Democrats could use the ongoing negotiations over the Defense Authorization Act as leverage to press for Hegseth’s testimony before the end of the month.
The growing backlash came as President Donald Trump convened an evening meeting in the Oval Office with top Cabinet and national security officials to discuss the next steps in Venezuela, following more than 20 U.S. strikes on vessels the Administration says are part of drug-smuggling networks tied to President Nicolás Maduro.
At the center of the dispute is a Washington Post report alleging that after the U.S. attacked a suspected drug boat on Sept. 2, killing most of those on board, a second missile was fired at two survivors struggling in the water. The U.S. is not in a declared war with Venezuela, and lawmakers said such an order—if confirmed—would violate basic tenets of the law of armed conflict.
Some Republicans voiced similar alarm. Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that if the attack unfolded as described, “that is a violation of the law of war,” noting that survivors who are no longer fighting do not pose the “imminent threat” required to justify lethal force. “It’s hard to believe that two people on a raft, trying to survive, would pose an imminent threat,” he said.
The Pentagon has declined to elaborate on the Post’s findings. But at Monday’s press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged for the first time that the follow-up strike was ordered by Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, and said he acted “well within his authority.”
“On September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” 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.”
Pressed repeatedly on whether the Administration endorsed the release of the military video from the operation, Leavitt declined to say. She instead insisted the strike was “conducted in self-defense to protect Americans” and was carried out “in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
Her refusal only inflamed congressional frustration. Lawmakers noted that even after the Administration has provided 13 bipartisan briefings on the boat strikes and allowed members to review certain legal documents, they still lack fundamental clarity about the legal basis for the strikes, the intelligence guiding individual targeting decisions, and the chain of command behind the Sept. 2 incident.
Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, a member of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters at a press conference on Monday that he spoke with Wicker about calling on Hegseth and Admiral Bradley to appear before the committee but is “not so confident they will.”
“This is not an Administration that follows any norms, but we need to get to the bottom of this,” he added. “We are not Russia and Iraq. I’m really concerned if the reporting is correct. I hope the reporting about this incident is not accurate, but what the White House said today indicated it might be. We’re going to have to see.”
Blumenthal, who also sits on the committee, told TIME that Wicker should “act right away” and begin scheduling witness testimony. He added that “the potential set of criminal actions will present a test” for upholding national security, noting that Hegseth could be exposed to criminal liability under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice—the military’s criminal code that applies to members of the armed forces.
“It’s not just to enforce our moral credibility, but it also protects our own troops. We prosecuted Japanese and Germans for killing our troops after they were wounded or captured and we need to [protect] these rules to protect our own troops,” he said. “It’s a matter of national security.”
Title 18 of the U.S. code, which covers “war crimes,” includes as an example someone who ” intentionally kills…one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.” Those who survived the first strike would fall under that description, some experts argue.
Blumenthal added that he was “encouraged” that Wicker intends vigorous oversight, but noted that “what that means in reality is yet to be known.”
“It has to be more than just a general hearing at some point in a couple months from now on the operations in the Caribbean,” Blumenthal said. “It has to be next week, we have to call witnesses beginning with Admiral Bradley. He is the key figure here.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday he would file a war powers resolution along with Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rand Paul of Kentucky to block the deployment of U.S. troops to Venezuela if Trump orders additional strikes on or near the mainland. “The power to declare war lies in the hands of Congress, and we intend to exert that authority, should the need arise,” Schumer said.
He also demanded that Hegseth release the video tapes documenting the Sept. 2 operation, which lawmakers say would immediately clarify whether a second, impermissible strike occurred. “If he refuses to release these tapes, it calls into question the truthfulness of his account,” Schumer said. “The tapes will show one way or the other what happened and whether Hegseth is telling the truth. If Secretary Hegseth has nothing to hide, he should not fear being truthful.”
Schumer also called for committee hearings and “full and transparent briefings from the Pentagon,” adding, “Secretary Hegseth himself should come before the Congress to testify under oath about the nature of his order, the evidence supporting the strikes, and an explanation for what the goals are in Venezuela.”
Congress’s bipartisan inquiries are already underway. Senior leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee said they have requested detailed information from the Pentagon and will conduct “vigorous oversight.”
But not all Republicans share those concerns, with some openly casting doubt on the underlying report of the second military strike. Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told reporters on Monday that he was skeptical of The Washington Post’s reporting that Hegseth gave a spoken directive to “kill everybody,” noting that the story cited anonymous sources.
Kennedy told TIME that he would not advise Hegseth to testify under oath in Congress as Democrats have called for. “I wouldn’t do it on the basis of a Washington Post article,” he said.
When told that Leavitt confirmed the second strike at the press briefing, Kennedy said: “I don’t care what the White House press secretary said, I read the Washington Post article and I think it’s typical Washington Post bulls—t.”
Others are hoping to get more information. “If there was a directive to take a second shot and kill people, that’s a violation of an ethical, moral, or legal code,” Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told reporters Monday. “But it could be, was it the Oxford word of the year—rage bait?”
As the political pressure intensifies, congressional investigators are preparing to examine the intelligence that prompted the Sept. 2 strike, the legal justification underpinning “Operation Southern Spear,” and the internal deliberations that followed the initial reports of survivors in the water.
Still, without the video recordings, lawmakers acknowledge their ability to establish the facts remains limited. Several members said the tapes would likely be the fastest and most decisive way to resolve whether a war crime occurred—and whether the defense secretary misled Congress or the President.
“What we need right now more than anything else is the truth—the facts,” Schumer said. “Which is precisely what Secretary Hegseth has refused to give.”
The post Boat Strike Revelations Draw Bipartisan Outrage, Spurring Push for Hearings as Soon as ‘Next Week’ appeared first on TIME.
