The White House has issued a robust defense of U.S. military operations targeting suspected Venezuelan narcotics vessels in the Caribbean, affirming that a senior Navy commander acted within legal parameters when authorizing lethal strikes. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Monday that Admiral Frank Bradley operated “well within his authority and the law” in ordering additional military action against an alleged drug-smuggling boat.
The administration forcefully denied allegations reported by the Washington Post that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had issued verbal commands to “kill everybody” aboard targeted vessels. Both Hegseth and White House officials characterized these claims as “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory,” with President Trump expressing complete confidence in his defense secretary.
This military campaign, framed as a counter-narcotics initiative, has resulted in over 80 fatalities since early September. The Trump administration characterizes these operations as acts of self-defense against presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups transporting illicit drugs toward American shores.
The strikes have triggered bipartisan concern in Congress, with both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees initiating inquiries into the operational circumstances. Senators Roger Wicker and Jack Reed announced vigorous oversight measures to establish factual clarity regarding engagement protocols.
Internationally, Venezuela’s National Assembly has condemned the military actions and pledged thorough investigation into allegations of secondary strikes that reportedly killed survivors. The Venezuelan government accuses the United States of deliberately escalating regional tensions to undermine its sovereignty.
The legal framework governing these operations remains contentious, with the administration classifying the campaign as a non-international armed conflict against drug traffickers. This classification invokes Geneva Convention provisions prohibiting targeting of wounded participants and mandating their apprehension and medical care.
The current controversy echoes previous scrutiny of U.S. engagement protocols during the Obama administration, particularly regarding drone strike practices that sometimes resulted in unintended casualties.