Members of Congress say they intend to investigate whether the U.S. military broke the law when it allegedly killed two survivors of a strike on a suspected drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean. The White House has defended the action as lawful.

What happened

According to the administration, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized a Sept. 2 strike that destroyed a vessel carrying 11 people. It was the first in a series of attacks targeting suspected drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela’s coast.

Hegseth has faced scrutiny following reports that the commander overseeing the mission ordered a second strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage. The White House disputes the account, saying key facts remain unclear.

Hegseth said he watched the initial strike remotely but did not see survivors. Hours later, he learned Admiral Frank Bradley had ordered another attack.

Both Hegseth and the White House defended the follow-on strike, though President Donald Trump said he would not have preferred a second hit.

Since early September, about 20 strikes have been carried out, killing more than 80 people. The campaign coincides with heightened U.S. pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whom Washington considers illegitimate.

Was the strike legal?

Legal experts say killing suspected traffickers who pose no imminent threat could constitute murder under U.S. or international law. The administration argues the operation complies with the law of armed conflict, framing drug cartels as armed groups posing an immediate danger to Americans.

The rules governing armed conflict require distinguishing between civilians and fighters, limiting harm to civilians, and restricting force to military objectives.

Human rights organizations dispute that drug cartels qualify as armed groups under international definitions, which typically require sustained ideological or political violence.

Critics say labeling cartels as terrorists does not make the strikes lawful. U.S. operations against al-Qaida were permitted because Congress authorized force after the Sept. 11 attacks. Congress has never authorized military action against narcotics networks.

Even if such authority existed, experts say intentionally targeting shipwreck survivors could amount to a war crime. The Pentagon’s Law of War Manual forbids attacking incapacitated or shipwrecked individuals who are not hostile.

Lawmakers who viewed video of the strike split along party lines, with Democrats claiming survivors were clearly in distress while Republicans defended the military’s actions.

Can the strikes be challenged?

Congress can subpoena officials, restrict military authority, or cut funding. Court challenges face obstacles because judges often defer to executive powers, and survivors have already been repatriated, limiting potential plaintiffs.

Some U.S. allies have voiced concern, and one family has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. International bodies, however, have limited leverage over Washington.

Could commanders face prosecution?

Both the Pentagon and the Justice Department could investigate and pursue charges if unlawful killings occurred. Investigators would need to determine who issued the second-strike order, the condition of the vessel, and whether surviving individuals posed a threat.

Hegseth, as a civilian, would be subject to prosecution in federal court, while Bradley and military personnel could face court-martial proceedings. Following illegal orders is not a defense, though officials could argue public comments prejudiced their cases.

Trump retains the authority to pardon anyone convicted of federal or war crimes.