Double-Tap Strike Near Venezuela Sparks Congressional Firestorm
Here’s a straight-up take on what’s going on with Pete Hegseth, the U.S. boat strikes near Venezuela, and the firestorm in Congress. I didn’t cozy it up or dress it up. Read on.
What Happened in International Waters
According to new reporting, U.S. forces carried out a double-tap strike on a small boat in international waters near Venezuela on September 2, 2025. The first strike destroyed the vessel; a second strike — ordered after the first — killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage. Axios confirmed the timeline and operational details.
The second strike was reportedly approved by Admiral Frank Bradley, under authorization from Hegseth. Bradley briefed senior lawmakers from the House and Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees this week.
Congressional Reaction: From Disturbed to Furious
Many lawmakers describe the footage shown in those briefings as deeply disturbing. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called it “one of the most troubling scenes I’ve seen in public service.”
Members warned the strike may have violated both U.S. military law and international maritime law. Under the doctrine of the laws of war, shipwrecked or incapacitated individuals are protected — and targeting “shipwrecked survivors” may amount to a war crime.
Some lawmakers, including Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), already signaled plans to introduce articles of impeachment against Hegseth.
At the same time, others — like Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Rick Crawford — defended the operation. They argued that the strikes were lawful and necessary under U.S. policy against what the administration calls “narco-terrorists.”
The Legal and Moral Stakes
Legal analysts emphasize that even if the boat was suspected of trafficking drugs or tied to a cartel, that does not convert it into an active battlefield. Traffickers are not combatants in a recognized armed conflict. Targeting survivors after a strike — especially those incapacitated or unable to defend themselves — is prohibited under international humanitarian law.
Moreover, the lack of transparency — including incomplete footage and refusal to release unedited video recordings publicly — complicates independent verification.
Critics argue that this undermines the very foundation of accountability, especially when lethal force is used in non-war zones.
Administration’s Defense of the Operation
The White House insists the follow-up strike was lawful. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Hegseth authorized Bradley to conduct what they call “kinetic strikes,” and that Bradley acted “within his authority and the law.” According to her, destroying the boat and eliminating the threat justified the operation.
Hegseth himself said he observed the first strike live but left before the second strike — claiming he did not see survivors in the water. He defended the decision on the grounds of the “fog of war.”
Administration officials note that this strike is part of a wider campaign targeting alleged drug-trafficking networks — now being framed as “narco-terrorists.” The implication is that such strikes could continue under that doctrine.
Broader Implications for U.S. Military Policy
This situation raises serious questions about U.S. military operations outside declared war zones. If Congress ultimately confirms that the strikes violated international or U.S. law, it could set a precedent for rejecting or curbing executive-branch autonomy in such operations.
It also risks damaging the U.S.’s moral standing with allies and within international law communities. Critics warn the strikes may erode norms that protect shipwrecked or otherwise undefended individuals.
Domestically, it could trigger a major political reckoning if Congress pursues impeachment or other consequences against Hegseth.
What Comes Next
Congressional investigations are underway. Committees demand full transparency: unedited footage, legal memos, rules of engagement, orders given, chain-of-command logs.
If accountable evidence emerges showing prohibited conduct, the debate may shift from politics to legal reckoning — with potential charges, calls for resignations, or new legislation limiting such strikes.
If the administration defends and continues similar operations, this could mark a sharp shift in how the U.S. treats suspected drug traffickers — from law-enforcement targets to military enemies operating in maritime zones.
That shift, once normalized, could have long-term consequences for how America projects force and defines threats.
Auf Wiedersehen, amigos.
