The Biden administration is under intense scrutiny after a controversial US military strike on September 2 destroyed an alleged drug-smuggling vessel off the Venezuelan coast—followed by a reported second strike that killed two survivors. The operation, authorised by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has triggered accusations of unlawful killings, violations of international law, and potential overreach of executive power. The episode has rapidly escalated into one of the most serious crises of Hegseth’s tenure, raising difficult questions about accountability and the limits of military authority.

According to early details reported by Reuters, US forces struck a vessel carrying 11 individuals in what the White House described as part of an expanded campaign targeting drug cartels operating from Latin America. The controversy intensified after a Washington Post report claimed that the on-scene commander ordered a second strike on two crew members who survived the initial blast and were clinging to floating debris. An unnamed source suggested Hegseth had issued guidance allowing “no survivors”—an allegation the secretary has vehemently denied as “fake news,” even as calls for evidence mount.

Legal experts have warned that striking shipwrecked survivors could constitute a clear violation of both US criminal law and the international laws of armed conflict. The Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual lists firing on incapacitated or shipwrecked individuals as an example of an illegal order that must be refused. Adding to the confusion, Hegseth initially told Fox News he was watching the operation live before later clarifying that he did not witness any survivors and only learned of the second blast hours later. This shifting narrative has amplified demands for transparency and raised concerns about whether rules of engagement were followed.

Also Read: 29 Footballers Face Arrest in Turkey Betting Probe

A central issue in the unfolding storm is whether Hegseth possessed the legal authority to launch such strikes. Under the US Constitution, the power to declare war rests with Congress, while the president, as commander-in-chief, directs military operations. Hegseth’s authority is therefore limited to executing presidential orders. The Trump administration contends that existing counter-drug authorities and commander-in-chief powers were sufficient to approve the mission. However, critics argue that Congress has never authorised military action against Venezuela or drug cartels in this context, and that conducting a sustained strike campaign without approval may violate the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Growing unease in Washington has prompted bipartisan demands for oversight. Lawmakers are pressing for the release of unedited strike footage, communications logs and the classified Office of Legal Counsel memo reportedly outlining the operation’s legal reasoning. According to the Associated Press, Hegseth has said he is still reviewing whether the footage can be released—an answer that has only fuelled congressional frustration. A bipartisan coalition is now preparing legislation aimed at restricting President Trump’s ability to escalate military action without explicit congressional consent.

At the core of the debate is a fundamental legal and ethical question: did the US kill shipwrecked survivors in violation of domestic and international law? Under established norms, individuals who are hors de combat—including the wounded, incapacitated or shipwrecked—are protected from attack. Even if Congress had authorised a broader conflict, knowingly killing survivors could constitute murder or a war crime. Whether Hegseth or the on-scene commander will face legal jeopardy remains unknown, but the Justice Department and military justice system may ultimately determine the fate of one of the most explosive defence controversies in recent US history.

Also Read: SIT Conducts Day-Long Search of Mamkootathil’s Palakkad Apartment in Rape Investigation