Alleged Illegal U.S. Naval Strike and the Betrayal of Military Ethics: A Report on Leadership Failure and Accountability

The Incident: A Second Strike on Survivors in International Waters

Recent reports indicate that the U.S. Navy conducted a military operation off the coast of Venezuela on September 2, 2025, targeting a vessel suspected of narcotics trafficking 10. While counter-narcotics interdiction operations are authorized under specific legal frameworks, what followed has ignited national and international controversy: a reported second strike on survivors found clinging to wreckage in the water after the initial attack.

Multiple news outlets, including CNN and NBC News, confirm that the U.S. military carried out a follow-up strike after the first attack failed to kill all individuals aboard the boat 9. The Washington Post reported that two survivors were seen holding onto debris before a second strike was ordered, resulting in their deaths 6. This escalation—from disabling or capturing suspected traffickers to deliberately targeting survivors in distress—falls under intense scrutiny for potential violations of the Law of Armed Conflict.

The Legal Framework: Why Targeting Survivors Is a War Crime

The U.S. Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual explicitly prohibits attacks on individuals who are no longer combatants due to shipwreck, injury, or surrender. The manual states: “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.” This principle is universally cited across legal analyses as a fundamental rule rooted in both customary international law and treaty obligations, including the Geneva Conventions.

Jurists and military law experts agree that such an order is so blatantly unlawful that it cannot be justified under any exception—whether in armed conflict or during peacetime law enforcement operations 34. As noted by experts cited in outlets like Time and Just Security, service members have a legal duty to refuse such orders, and superiors who issue them may face criminal prosecution 2938. The principle is clear: no order overrides the prohibition against murder.

Key Figures and Their Roles in the Escalation

Pete Hegseth: Authorization of Lethal Force

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is cited in multiple sources as having issued a verbal order to "kill everyone" on board the suspected drug vessel 25. The Washington Post reported Hegseth issued a directive for a full-kill mission during the first strike, and when survivors remained, a second strike was carried out in compliance 6. Hegseth, appearing on Fox News, defended the operation as necessary in a “war on drugs,” stating, “Biden coddled terrorists; we kill them” 24. ABC News further reports that Hegseth declined to comment on whether he authorized the killing of survivors 22.

Critically, Hegseth admitted watching the strikes in real-time via a live video feed, a detail that underscores direct civilian oversight and personal involvement in operational decisions 25.

Admiral Frank Bradley: The Operational Executor

U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Frank Bradley is identified as the military commander who authorized and executed the second strike. According to PBS News and The Hill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” clarifying the chain of delegation 4954. Following the initial attack, Admiral Bradley reportedly ordered follow-up strikes that eliminated all survivors and ensured the wreckage sank 12.

While Bradley acted as the operational commander, legal liability does not absolve a superior civilian official—especially one who set a tone of extermination.

Karoline Leavitt: Deflecting Blame and Shielding Political Figures

In multiple press briefings in December 2025, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the authorization of the second strike but consistently framed Admiral Bradley as the decision-maker 52. While acknowledging Hegseth’s authorization, her public statements emphasized Bradley’s role, defending him as “well within legal authority” 48.

This rhetorical strategy has been widely criticized as an attempt to “throw the admiral under the bus”—a tactic where a uniformed officer is publicly scapegoated to protect political appointees and administration leadership. By naming Bradley as the one who “ordered the strike” while soft-pedaling Hegseth’s explicit “kill everyone” directive, Leavitt shifted public focus away from the policy originators toward the executor—a move with profound implications for military morale and civil-military relations 46.

The Impact on Military Personnel: A No-Win Situation

U.S. service members are trained to follow lawful orders, but are also taught that obedience to illegal orders is itself a crime. The U.S. military code, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), mandates that troops challenge orders that violate the laws of war 29.

In this case, those tasked with carrying out the second strike were placed in an impossible ethical and legal dilemma:

• Disobey the order and face disciplinary action or court-martial for insubordination.

• Obey and potentially commit war crimes for which they could be prosecuted.

This “no-win” scenario is a failure not of the troops, but of leadership. The burden of clarity lies with commanders and civilian leaders to issue lawful, moral directives. When political appointees like Hegseth signal extreme lethality—and the White House then deflects blame onto uniformed leaders like Admiral Bradley—it erodes trust in the chain of command and demoralizes the force 1.

John Vincent’s Outrage: A Veteran’s Perspective on Leadership and Accountability

John Vincent, a former Command Master Chief in the U.S. Navy and congressional candidate running on a platform of integrity, service, and accountability, has expressed profound outrage over this incident. His campaign materials emphasize respect for veterans, ethical leadership, and restoring honor to public service [Campaign Brief_ 20261128 - John Vincent For Congress.pdf].

From Vincent’s perspective, this episode exemplifies a pattern of disrespect toward the military:

• The administration uses the Navy as a tool for political messaging but fails to uphold the legal and ethical standards the military swears to defend.

• When controversy arises, the uniform is blamed—not the policymakers.

• Veterans are hailed in speeches, but their values are violated in practice.

As Vincent would argue, “Supporting our troops” is not about symbolism. It means ensuring the orders they follow are lawful, the leadership they serve under is ethical, and accountability flows both upward and downward—especially to those in civilian command roles who initiate action from behind a desk.

By protecting Hegseth and spotlighting Bradley, the White House signals that political loyalty outweighs military honor—a toxic precedent for future operations 49.

Conclusion: Leadership, Not Uniforms, Is What Failed

The Venezuela boat strike of September 2, 2025, is not merely a military operation gone wrong. It is a case study in how political leadership can compromise the foundational ethics of the armed forces. The order to kill survivors in the water violated the DoD Law of War Manual 3339, and the subsequent response by the White House—led by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt—exposed a disturbing willingness to sacrifice military leaders to shield political figures.

True support for service members means providing clear, legal, and moral orders—and holding the highest officials accountable when those standards are breached. Admiral Bradley may have pressed the button, but the order originated from a climate of permissiveness created at the top.

As investigations continue and bipartisan scrutiny mounts 28, one point remains unassailable:
The Navy didn’t fail. The leadership did.