Hegseth, with White House help, tries to distance himself from boat strike fallout
As Congress vows accountability, the Trump administration emphasized it was a top military commander — not the defense secretary — who directed the engagement.
Updated
December 1, 2025 at 8:31 p.m. EST today at 8:31 p.m. EST
By Noah Robertson
and
Tara Copp
Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, center, attends a ceremony at Fort Bragg in North Carolina last week. (US Army/Reuters)
Officials in Congress and the Pentagon said Monday they are increasingly concerned that the Trump administration intends to scapegoat the military officer who directed U.S. forces to kill two survivors of a targeted strike on suspected drug smugglers in Latin America, as lawmakers made initial moves to investigate whether the attack constituted a war crime.
The Washington Post reported exclusively Friday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken order to kill the entire crew of a vessel thought to be ferrying narcotics in the Caribbean Sea, the first of nearly 20 such strikes directed by the administration since early September.
When two survivors were detected, the military commander overseeing the operation, Adm. Frank M. Bradley, directed another strike to comply with Hegseth’s order that no one be left alive, people with direct knowledge of the matter told The Post. The Trump administration has said 11 people were killed as a result of the operation.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, acknowledged Monday that Hegseth had authorized Bradley to conduct the strikes on Sept. 2. Bradley, she added, “worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed.”
Her scripted remarks at a news briefing elicited a furious backlash within the Defense Department, where officials described feeling angry at the uncertainty over whether Hegseth would take responsibility for his alleged role in the operation — or leave the military and civilian staff under him to face the consequences.
“This is ‘protect Pete’ bulls---,” one military official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations, told The Post.
Leavitt’s statement “left it up to interpretation” who was responsible for the second strike that killed the two survivors, a separate military official said, imploring the White House to provide clarity on the issue.
One official said of Leavitt’s statement, “It’s throwing us, the service members, under the bus.” Another person said some of Hegseth’s top civilian staff appeared deeply alarmed about the revelations and were contemplating whether to leave the administration.
Hegseth, writing on social media Monday night, said he stands by the admiral “and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since.” His statement is likely to deepen the sense of furor among military officials who suspect Hegseth is attempting to insulate himself from any legal recourse and leave Bradley — whom the secretary called “an American hero, a true professional” — to account for the fallout alone.
The Pentagon has declined The Post’s request to interview Hegseth about his role in the strikes. President Donald Trump told reporters Sunday that he had discussed the matter with Hegseth, who, Trump said, assured him he did not give an order to kill everyone aboard the boat. “And I believe him,” the president added, “100 percent.”
On Capitol Hill, key offices also were parsing Leavitt’s remarks for signs of the administration’s strategy as it seeks to quell unrest from members of Congress — including some top Republicans.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters that he had spoken to Hegseth and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Dan Caine, and that he expects to speak with Bradley also. Wicker, whose committee is one of two in Congress that over the weekend opened an inquiry into the Sept. 2 operation, said he is seeking video and audio recordings of the strikes, and that once those materials are received he will decide how to proceed.
“We’re going to find out what the true facts are,” Wicker said.
Bradley, who oversees U.S. Special Operations Command, is not widely known outside that community. A U.S. Naval Academy graduate, he came up through the ranks as a Navy SEAL and was one of the very first troops deployed to Afghanistan to strike the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Before assuming his current assignment, Bradley led the shadowy Joint Special Operations Command, and oversaw Special Operations forces in the Middle East and the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, commonly known as SEAL Team 6.
A U.S. official on Monday lamented that Bradley, who has kept a low profile throughout much of his career, was singled out by Leavitt in her statement at the White House earlier.
“Whether he takes the blame or not,” this official said, “his reputation has been marred by this forever, just by that statement.”
A spokesperson for Special Operations Command declined to comment.
Caine’s office issued a brief account of his exchange with lawmakers over the weekend, saying the conversation focused on the “intent and legality” of the Trump administration’s mission in Latin America. The general also expressed his “trust and confidence in the experienced commanders at every echelon” who are involved in the campaign, though the statement does not identify Bradley or any other military officials by name.
A spokesperson for Caine declined to comment beyond the statement issued by his office, saying the general’s communications with Congress are private.
The call included Wicker and Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), the Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, as well as Reps. Mike D. Rogers (R-Alabama) and Adam Smith (D-Washington), who head up the House Armed Services Committee.
Smith said he would meet with Bradley and other Defense Department leaders later this week. The congressman criticized what he said was a lack of information from the Pentagon. “I wouldn’t say they are cooperating,” he said in an interview. A spokesperson for the congressman said the meeting also would include Wicker, Reed and Rogers.
Leavitt suggested Monday that Hegseth had spoken with multiple lawmakers “who may have expressed some concerns over the weekend.” She did not identify them, though, and the Pentagon has not disclosed details of the secretary’s outreach to Capitol Hill.
The House and Senate committees have opened separate inquiries into the Sept. 2 strike, directing questions to the Pentagon and pledging a full accounting of what occurred.
It was not immediately clear what those efforts will entail, though it is within Congress’s authority to seek witness interviews, subpoena evidence, hold closed-door meetings and conduct public hearings.
Legal experts have said that the survivors killed in the strike did not pose an imminent threat to U.S. personnel and thus were illegitimate targets — even under the Trump administration’s controversial legal defense of the strikes.
On Saturday, a group of former military lawyers and senior leaders who have scrutinized the Trump administration’s military activities in Latin America said in a statement that the targeting of defenseless people is prohibited — regardless of whether the United States is in an armed conflict, conducting law enforcement or other military operations.
Under the circumstances cited by The Post in its report Friday, “not only does international law prohibit targeting these survivors, but it also requires the attacking force to protect, rescue, and, if applicable, treat them as prisoners of war,” the group’s assessment says. “Violations of these obligations are war crimes, murder, or both. There are no other options.”
The Trump administration has sought to justify its military campaign by arguing that the boats being destroyed are supporting the illicit sale of narcotics responsible for killing tens of thousands of Americans each year.
The administration also has designated as “terrorist organizations” several Latin American groups involved in the drug trade.
In a classified memo shared with Congress, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which issues binding legal arguments for the entire administration, has claimed the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with cartel groups funding campaigns of violence in America and allied countries, according to people familiar with the document. The memo also argues that U.S. service members involved in the attacks are immune from prosecution, The Post reported previously.
Still, the Defense Department has privately acknowledged to lawmakers that nearly all of the strikes have targeted suspected shipments of cocaine — rather than fentanyl, the leading cause of U.S. overdose deaths. Moreover, most of the narcotics moved through the Caribbean are headed toward Europe and Western Africa rather than the United States.
Lawmakers on the Armed Services committees — including top Republicans — have criticized the administration for withholding information related to the strikes and the legal arguments supporting them.
In October, Wicker and Reed published two letters they had sent to the Pentagon weeks earlier requesting the videos and orders documenting the boat strikes, which so far have killed more than 80 people. To date, the Pentagon has not complied — a delay that has surpassed the time required by law for the administration to respond to Congress, said a congressional aide.
Those materials would shed light on the Sept. 2 strike.
The aide said the inquiries being sought by lawmakers now mark the “culmination of the last three months of obfuscation” by the Defense Department.
Kadia Goba, Marianna Sotomayor, Theodoric Meyer, Alex Horton, Dan Lamothe and Aaron Schaffer contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... caribbean/
