Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on December 16, 2025, that the Pentagon will not make public the unedited video of a military strike that resulted in the deaths of two survivors from a previous attack on a boat suspected of trafficking cocaine in the Caribbean. This decision comes as members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee prepare to review the footage, although it remains uncertain whether all congressional members will have access to it. Hegseth emphasized that releasing such sensitive material to the public is not an option.
During a briefing on Capitol Hill, Hegseth, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, defended the U.S. military’s actions in international waters near Venezuela. This escalation of military force has raised questions among lawmakers regarding the overarching objectives of the campaign. While the administration claims the operation aims to combat drug trafficking and protect American citizens, the recent incident involving the survivors has sparked significant scrutiny.
The military strike on September 2, 2025, which killed the two individuals, is under investigation as part of a broader inquiry into U.S. military operations in the region. Hegseth and Rubio characterized the campaign as a successful counter-drug mission aimed at dismantling the infrastructure of terrorist organizations operating in the Americas. Rubio stated, “These organizations are undermining the security of Americans, killing Americans, poisoning Americans.”
Despite the administration’s defense, members of Congress express concern about the implications of the strike. The Pentagon recently confirmed additional operations, including strikes against three more boats suspected of drug smuggling, which resulted in the deaths of eight individuals. Senators from both parties have voiced their dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity regarding President Donald Trump‘s objectives in relation to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and whether direct military intervention in Venezuela is being considered.
As the U.S. continues to bolster its military presence in the region, including deploying warships and aircraft near Venezuelan airspace, lawmakers are pushing for greater transparency and oversight. The administration has not sought formal authorization from Congress for these military actions, prompting some legislators to advance war powers resolutions for potential votes.
The controversy surrounding the September 2 strike has intensified, particularly given that Congress has received limited information regarding the rationale for U.S. military engagement. Lawmakers have often learned of military strikes through social media, raising alarms about operational transparency.
The demand for the release of video footage from the September strike has become a focal point for criticism. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a vocal opponent of the military campaign, stated, “The American public ought to see it. Shooting unarmed people floundering in the water, clinging to wreckage, is not who we are as a people.” He criticized the lack of due process in military operations, asserting that it contradicts American values.
While some Republicans, including Senator Jim Risch, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have defended the strikes as legal under both U.S. and international law, inconsistencies in the administration’s narrative have surfaced. The Pentagon initially dismissed claims regarding the attack as “completely false,” but further investigations revealed conflicting accounts regarding the intentions of the survivors during the strike.
Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who commanded the operation, acknowledged in private briefings that the two individuals who were killed had attempted to overturn the partially destroyed boat but were unlikely to succeed. The decision to proceed with the second strike was based on the belief that drugs were still present in the vessel.
Experts have raised concerns that the military actions contradict established laws of warfare. Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer, pointed out that targeting individuals who are effectively shipwrecked would be illegal. “The boat was damaged, the boat was overturned, and the boat had no power. I really don’t care if there was another boat coming to rescue them. They’re shipwrecked,” he stated.
As Congress continues to seek answers regarding the legality and justification for the military campaign, Hegseth and other officials are expected to provide further classified briefings in the coming days. Lawmakers are increasingly eager to understand the intelligence behind these operations and whether they align with the laws of war.
