The White House on Monday defended a U.S. admiral’s decision to carry out multiple strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessel in September, saying he had authorization from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, even as critics raised alarm over a reported second strike targeting survivors.

The Washington Post reported that a follow-up strike was ordered to kill two survivors of the initial attack and to comply with what it described as a directive from Hegseth that no one be left alive.

President Donald Trump said Sunday he would not have supported a second strike and said Hegseth denied issuing such an order.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said Monday that Hegseth had authorized Admiral Frank Bradley to conduct the Sept. 2 operation.

“Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Leavitt said.

She said the strike was carried out in “self-defense” to protect U.S. interests, occurred in international waters and complied with the law of armed conflict.

“This administration has designated these narco-terrorists as foreign terrorist organizations,” she said.

Since September, the U.S. military has launched at least 19 strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and off the Pacific coasts of Latin America, killing at least 76 people.

Critics, however, have questioned whether the United States has a legal basis for treating the missions as combat operations. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have pledged to investigate the strikes and the reported order concerning survivors.

Under international humanitarian law, attacking shipwrecked or incapacitated individuals is prohibited. The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual states that such persons cannot be intentionally targeted and must receive medical assistance unless they act with hostility or attempt escape.

Laura Dickinson, a law professor at George Washington University, said most legal scholars doubt the boat strikes amount to an armed conflict under international law, meaning lethal force would be justified only as a last resort.

“It would be murder outside of armed conflict,” she said. Even in wartime, she added, killing survivors “would likely be a war crime.”

The JAGs Working Group, a coalition of former military lawyers, called the alleged order “patently illegal,” arguing that service members have an obligation to refuse it and that any who comply should face war-crimes charges.

On X, Hegseth defended Bradley, calling him “an American hero” and insisting he has his “100% support.” Hegseth said he stands by Bradley’s decisions “on the September 2 mission and all others since.”

Trump on Monday discussed the broader pressure campaign on Venezuela with senior advisers, a U.S. official said, as the administration weighs next steps.

US options include effort to oust Maduro

Trump has previously suggested the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. On Saturday, he said the airspace above and around the country should be treated as “closed in its entirety,” offering no details and prompting confusion in Caracas.

He confirmed Sunday that he had spoken with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whom Washington considers illegitimate, but declined to elaborate on the exchange.

The administration has accused Maduro of facilitating drug trafficking that harms Americans, a charge Maduro denies.

Reuters has reported that U.S. options include a push to topple Maduro and that the military is preparing for a new phase of operations after a major buildup in the Caribbean and nearly three months of strikes on suspected drug-running vessels off Venezuela’s coast. Trump has also authorized covert CIA operations in the country.