‘Fog of war’ or unlawful killing? Pentagon knew there were survivors before second US strike on Caribbean drug boat

The second strike was ordered to sink the vessel, according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss it publicly.

The Pentagon knew there were survivors after a September U.S. strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean Sea and the military still carried out a follow-up attack, two people familiar with the operation told The Associated Press.

The second strike was ordered to sink the vessel, according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss it publicly. The Trump administration has said all 11 people aboard were killed.

The chain of command behind the decision remains unclear, including whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was directly involved, one of the people told The Associated Press. The question of who ordered the second strike is now central to congressional investigations into whether the U.S. acted lawfully.

The new details are expected to feature prominently in a classified congressional briefing on Thursday with Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the commander the Trump administration says ordered the second strike. The briefing comes as bipartisan pressure builds on the Pentagon to explain why information about survivors and the follow-on attack was not fully disclosed to lawmakers in earlier briefings.

Hegseth is under growing scrutiny over the department’s strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, and in particular the Sept. 2 mission. Some legal experts and lawmakers say the follow-on strike, conducted after the Pentagon knew there were survivors, would have breached both peacetime norms and the laws of armed conflict.

Hegseth has defended the decision as part of the 'fog of war,' saying during a Cabinet meeting at the White House this week that he did not see any survivors and 'didn’t stick around' for the rest of the mission. He has also said Bradley, as the admiral in charge, 'made the right call' in ordering the second hit and 'had complete authority to do' so.

According to the Trump administration, the Sept. 2 strike was the first against an alleged drug vessel in what it calls a counterdrug campaign that has grown to more than 20 known strikes and over 80 deaths. Officials have argued that the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels, even though Congress has not approved any specific authorisation for the use of military force in the region.

Why are lawmakers pushing back?

The information about the follow-on strike, and the fact that there were survivors after the first hit, was not presented to lawmakers during a classified briefing in the days immediately after the incident in September, one of the people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press. It was disclosed only later, and the explanation provided by the department has been broadly unsatisfactory to members of the national security committees.

In a rare show of bipartisan oversight, the Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate have swiftly announced investigations into the strikes. Lawmakers from both parties are questioning whether the administration’s “armed conflict” framing can legally justify repeated lethal force against suspected traffickers far from a conventional battlefield.

President Donald Trump was asked on Wednesday whether he would release video of the follow-on strike, as senior Democratic lawmakers have demanded. “I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have we’d certainly release. No problem,” he told reporters.

Some senators described Wednesday’s interactions with Huang as positive and productive, but the reactions to Hegseth’s handling of the counterdrug campaign have been more mixed. While some Republicans have backed his 'fog of war' defence, others have signalled unease with the lack of transparency.

Human rights challenge adds pressure

Separate from the Sept. 2 case, a later strike on Sept. 15 has prompted the family of a Colombian man, Alejandro Carranza, to file a petition with the premier human rights watchdog in the Americas. The filing argues that his death, when the military bombed his fishing boat, was an extrajudicial killing in violation of human rights conventions.

That case widens the stakes beyond U.S. domestic law to international human rights obligations, increasing potential exposure for Washington if the campaign is found to have breached those norms.