Secretary Hegseth defends secrecy amid congressional inquiry into the escalating and questionable Caribbean campaign.
Here’s what went down 👇
Read this if you’re tracking military aggression, war powers debate, or the legality of targeting survivors in international waters.
📍 What Just Happened
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the Pentagon will not publicly release the unedited video footage of the September strike that killed two survivors clinging to wreckage after an initial attack on a boat near Venezuela.
Hegseth defended the classified status of the video, but confirmed that select members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees would be allowed to review the footage.
⚖️ The Legal and Political Firestorm
Secrecy vs. Congressional Mandate: The refusal to release the footage comes even as a defense policy bill demands its disclosure to Congress, fueling accusations of a cover-up by the Trump administration.
Questionable Legality: Experts, including Berkeley Law professor John Yoo, argue the strikes are problematic because if the U.S. is "not a war against Venezuela," then using armed force against "shipwrecked" civilians committing crimes is highly questionable and potentially illegal under the laws of war.
Shifting Rationale: Initial administration explanations for the Sept. 2 strike have been inconsistent. The official who ordered the second strike, Adm. Bradley, privately admitted the two survivors were waving and unlikely to overturn the boat, but he proceeded to strike the wreckage to destroy drugs believed to be in the hull.
War Powers Debate: The campaign, which has destroyed over 20 boats and killed at least 95 people, is being conducted without congressional authorization for action against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, leading lawmakers to push for war powers resolutions.
🗣️ Lawmaker Division
Critics (Rand Paul): Argue that "shooting unarmed people floundering in the water" is morally wrong and demands transparency, viewing the footage as proof of the campaign's flawed rationale.
Supporters (Jim Risch): Insist the attacks are "absolutely, totally, and 100% legal" and successful in preventing drugs from reaching the U.S.
🧠 Why It Matters
The legal distinction between fighting a "war" and using armed force against "civilians committing crimes" is at the heart of the controversy, challenging the Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war.
The administration's secrecy and its go-it-alone approach without Congress is leading to scrutiny over the true objectives, which many lawmakers suspect are geared toward regime change in Venezuela.
🧾 The Bottom Line
Defense Secretary Hegseth is withholding the unedited video of the deadly strike on drug boat survivors, escalating the confrontation with Congress over the legality and rationale of the administration's aggressive, non-congressionally authorized military campaign in the Caribbean.