Trump and Hegseth distance themselves from follow-on strike on suspected drug boat

Geoff Bennett:

Welcome to the "News Hour."

It was the first attack in the Trump administration's new campaign in the Caribbean, and it has become the most contentious. A U.S. official tells the "PBS News Hour" tonight the U.S. military struck an alleged drug boat four times on September 2.

And, today, President Trump and Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the attack, but also distanced themselves from the follow-on strike that targeted people who weren't killed by the first strike.

Nick Schifrin joins us now.

So, Nick, what have you learned about what happened on September 2?

Nick Schifrin:

Well, exactly what you just said, Geoff.

The U.S. military struck that boat on September 2 four times, according to a U.S. official speaking to me today. The official said that, after the first strike, there were people on board who were not killed. The second strike targeted them. The third and fourth strikes were designed to sink the boat.

Now, why is this important? As of last week, all we knew from President Trump is that there had been a single strike on a boat that he said carried 11 narco-terrorists. Then, last week, we learned of a second strike. That was reporting in The Washington Post and others.

But we didn't know until today that the military needed four strikes to destroy the boat, which will be crucial when it comes to the legality of these strikes. And also, as you said today, President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, speaking at the White House today, really distancing themselves from that second strike to kill the people not killed by the first strike.

And it was ordered by then Joint Special Operations Command leader, Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley.

Pete Hegseth, U.S. Defense Secretary:

I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs.

So I moved on to my next meeting. A couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the — which he had the complete authority to do. And, by the way, Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. He sunk the boat, sunk the boat and eliminated the threat.

I did not personally see survivors, but I stand — because the thing was on fire. It was exploded in fire or smoke. You can't see anything. You got digital pictures. This is called the fog of war.

Nick Schifrin:

So, Hegseth pushing — push — I'm sorry — backing up, but at the same time pushing down responsibility for that second strike to Admiral Bradley.

And a defense official reiterates to me today that Hegseth did not give any additional orders between the first and second strikes. Now, as for the overall mission, the Pentagon said today that there had been 21 strikes, that it killed 82 people.

The administration describes this as an effort to stop drugs from coming to the United States. And, today, President Trump reiterated what the mission is, at least when it comes to these boats.

President Donald Trump:

I can say this. I want those boats taken out. And if we have to, we will attack on land also, just like we attack on sea.

Nick Schifrin:

Attacks on land Geoff, of course, that could target Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who the U.S. calls ahead of a narco state that the U.S. is pressuring to leave office.

Geoff Bennett:

And, on the matter of legality, Nick, why is it significant that it took four strikes to sink that boat?

Nick Schifrin:

You and I have both recently spoken to former military lawyers who say that this attack was illegal. There are specific passages of the Geneva Convention that say people who are at sea who are shipwrecked, even if they are combatants and their ship has been wrecked by a U.S. missile, must be rescued, not targeted.

But if their ship is still seaworthy, if they still have communications, if they still are carrying drugs on this boat, well, does that change things? That's the question I posed to James McPherson earlier today. He's the former Navy judge advocate general, the former top uniform lawyer in the Navy, also undersecretary of the Army under the first Trump administration.

Rear Adm. James Mcpherson (Ret.), Former U.S. Undersecretary of the Army: So we will assume for our conversation that we are engaged in a legal conflict.

During that conflict, if a boat is engaged and that boat is destroyed, in other words, it's no longer operational, it's a shipwreck, there are individuals on board who have survived and are in the water, they have become a non-target, if you will. They have been taken out of combat. They don't have the capability to engage in hostilities.

But if that boat was simply hit and was damaged, it'd still seaworthy, it can still float, and if the intelligence has shown that it still contains the drugs that we are trying to combat from coming into our country, and the individuals on board are mobile, they can act, they can operate the boat, they can communicate with another boat, those sorts of things, then that remains a legitimate target, and they remain a legitimate target.

Nick Schifrin:

That said, as McPherson suggested at the top of his statement, he and other former military lawyers we speak to do question the legality over the overall campaign. But Admiral Bradley will have his say to Congress, speaking to them Thursday.