The U.S. Military Killed Survivors in a Boat Strike. Here’s Who Could Face Charges.

Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

On September 2, 2025, a United States military strike targeted a vessel allegedly operated by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The engagement did not end with the destruction of the vessel. It was followed by a secondary kinetic strike specifically targeting survivors clinging to the wreckage.

This incident has precipitated a fracture within the American defense establishment, raising fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power, the definition of “war” in the 21st century, and the moral obligations of service members. The controversy centers not merely on the tactical decision to fire, but on the strategic and legal framework that reclassified alleged gang members as “narco-terrorists” subject to the laws of war rather than criminal suspects subject to due process.

The ramifications extend from the waters of the Caribbean to the halls of the Pentagon and the hearing rooms of Capitol Hill. With the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, implicated in reports alleging orders to “leave no survivors,” and the White House publicly assigning operational responsibility to a four-star Admiral, the crisis tests the integrity of the chain of command.

Operation Southern Spear

To understand the liabilities of September 2, you first need to understand the operational environment. The strike was not an isolated aberration but a calculated component of a massive shift in US force posture in the Western Hemisphere.

From Law Enforcement to “Hybrid War”

For decades, US counter-narcotics efforts in the Caribbean were law enforcement-led operations. The US Coast Guard, operating under Title 14 authorities, would interdict vessels, conduct boardings, seize contraband, and arrest crews for prosecution in US courts. Lethal force was reserved strictly for self-defense.

By mid-2025, the Trump administration fundamentally altered this paradigm. Characterizing the flow of narcotics as a form of “chemical warfare” and the cartels as “narco-terrorists,” the administration sought to shift the operational footing from law enforcement to armed conflict. This shift was formalized through the designation of groups like Tren de Aragua (February 2025) and the Cartel de los Soles (November 2025) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

The operational manifestation of this policy was “Operation Southern Spear.” Announced formally by Secretary Hegseth in November but active months prior, the operation’s stated mission was to “defend the Homeland” and “remove narco-terrorists from our Hemisphere.”

This language is crucial: “remove” implies elimination rather than arrest.

The Naval Armada

The scale of the deployment for Operation Southern Spear rivals major combat operations. The administration deployed:

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78): The Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier, carrying over 4,500 sailors and dozens of aircraft, was ordered to the region. Its presence signals “escalation dominance,” providing the capability for massive airstrikes, electronic warfare, and command and control.

Surface Combatants: Destroyers such as the USS Gravely and USS Thomas Hudner were deployed to escort the carrier and conduct independent operations.

Special Operations Motherships: The MV Ocean Trader, a specialized maritime support vessel used by Special Operations Forces, was deployed to serve as a floating staging base for up to 150 elite troops. This vessel allows for clandestine launch and recovery of small attack craft and drones.

Surveillance Architecture: The US installed advanced AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR radar systems in Trinidad and Tobago. This “Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar” provides high-fidelity tracking of small maritime targets, effectively creating a surveillance net over the southern Caribbean.

Autonomous Systems

A unique feature of Operation Southern Spear is the heavy integration of “robotic and autonomous systems.” Under the “Hybrid Fleet Campaign,” the US Navy’s 4th Fleet employed Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs), or drone boats, to patrol vast swathes of the ocean.

Liability Implication: The use of autonomy introduces complex liability questions. If a target is identified by an AI algorithm and struck by a remote operator in Florida, the “kill chain” is geographically and psychologically distanced. This distance can contribute to a desensitization to the target, potentially facilitating decisions like the second strike on September 2.

Operational Timeline

The tempo of operations escalated rapidly throughout the fall of 2025.

The Chain of Command

In the US military system, authority flows from the Constitution through the President to the military. Understanding who held which powers on September 2 is vital for assigning liability.

The National Command Authority

The NCA comprises the President and the Secretary of Defense. They alone have the authority to authorize major combat operations.

President Donald Trump (Commander-in-Chief):

Authority: Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief. He has the power to direct tactical operations.

Role in Sept 2: President Trump took immediate credit for the strike, posting on Truth Social that the military “literally shot out a boat.” He framed the targets as “narco-terrorists.” However, regarding the specific order to kill survivors, Trump has publicly distanced himself, stating he “wouldn’t have wanted that.”

Liability: As President, he enjoys absolute immunity from civil liability and significant immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts.” However, the War Powers Resolution places statutory limits on his ability to wage undeclared war.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth:

Authority: The Secretary of Defense has statutory authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense (10 U.S.C. § 113). He is the primary conduit for presidential orders.

Role in Sept 2: Hegseth is the central figure of controversy. Reports allege he issued a verbal directive to “kill everybody” or “leave no survivors.” The White House confirmed that “Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.”

Liability: Unlike the President, the SECDEF does not enjoy absolute immunity. If he issued an order that constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions (a war crime), he is theoretically subject to federal prosecution under the War Crimes Act.

The Combatant Commands

The operational execution falls to the Combatant Commanders and their subordinate task forces.

US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM): Admiral Alvin Holsey

Role: As the Geographic Combatant Commander for Latin America, Adm. Holsey was responsible for all US military operations in the Caribbean.

The Resignation: In a rare and significant move, Adm. Holsey resigned abruptly in October 2025, just one year into his three-year tour. Reports link his departure to his opposition to the strikes and the aggressive Rules of Engagement.

Significance: Holsey’s resignation represents the “conscience of command.” By stepping down, he likely sought to avoid liability for orders he believed were illegal or unethical. His testimony before Congress will be critical in establishing whether the “kill everyone” order was resisted by the uniformed leadership.

Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC): Admiral Frank M. Bradley

Role: At the time of the strike, Adm. Bradley commanded JSOC, the elite sub-command responsible for counter-terrorism and sensitive direct action missions. The White House explicitly named Bradley as the officer who “directed the engagement” and ordered the second strike.

The Promotion: Despite the controversy, Bradley was promoted to lead the entire US Special Operations Command in October 2025.

Liability: Bradley is in the most precarious position. He has admitted to ordering the strike. His defense depends entirely on the legality of the orders he received and the intelligence he possessed. If the order was illegal, he had a duty to disobey.

US Naval Forces Southern Command / 4th Fleet: Rear Admiral Carlos Sardiello

Role: Adm. Sardiello commands the naval assets in the region. He described Operation Southern Spear as part of the “Hybrid Fleet Campaign.” While JSOC likely controlled the specific strike, 4th Fleet assets provided the platform and surveillance.

The Kill Chain

The “kill chain” for the September 2 strike likely followed this path:

1. President/SECDEF: Establish policy that “narco-terrorists” are enemy combatants and authorize lethal force against vessels.
2. JSOC (Adm. Bradley): Receives intelligence of a Tren de Aragua vessel. Designates it a target.
3. Tactical Operations Center: Located likely on the MV Ocean Trader or at a forward operating base. Operators monitor drone feeds.
4. The Strike: An operator fires the initial missile.
5. Battle Damage Assessment: Sensors reveal survivors in the water.
6. The Critical Decision: The TOC reports survivors to JSOC. Adm. Bradley, citing the policy to “eliminate the threat,” orders the second strike.
7. Execution: The operator fires the second missile.

This streamlined chain bypasses the traditional Law Enforcement Detachments of the Coast Guard, removing the “arrest and prosecute” option from the equation.

International Humanitarian Law

The most severe accusations against US leaders are grounded in International Humanitarian Law, also known as the Law of Armed Conflict. The central question is whether the killing of the survivors constituted a war crime.

The Status of the Conflict

International law recognizes two states of violence:

International Armed Conflict: War between two states (e.g., US vs. Venezuela).

Non-International Armed Conflict: War between a state and a non-state armed group (e.g., US vs. Al-Qaeda).

The US argues this is a NIAC against Tren de Aragua. However, legal experts argue that drug cartels, while violent, do not typically meet the organization and intensity thresholds required to be classified as an “armed conflict” under international law. If there is no armed conflict, then human rights law applies, and lethal force is only permitted to prevent an imminent threat to life. In that scenario, the strike is simply murder.

The “Shipwrecked” Rule

Even if one accepts the US premise that an armed conflict exists, the conduct of hostilities is strictly regulated. A cornerstone of these regulations is the protection of those hors de combat: out of the fight.

Geneva Convention (II) of 1949: This convention specifically protects “wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea.” Article 12 mandates that they “shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.”

The Rule: A combatant who is in the water, clinging to wreckage, and not committing hostile acts (like firing a weapon) is considered shipwrecked. They are no longer a target. They must be collected and cared for, or at the very least, allowed to surrender.

The Violation: Ordering a strike on such individuals is a grave breach of the convention. It serves no military necessity, as the individuals are effectively neutralized by the ocean itself.

The “Laconia Order” Precedent

The historical parallel to the September 2 strike is the “Laconia Order” issued by German Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz in 1942.

The History: Following the sinking of the Laconia, Dönitz ordered U-boat commanders: “No attempt of any kind must be made at rescuing members of ships sunk… Rescue contradicts the most primitive demands of warfare.”

The Nuremberg Judgment: The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg weighed this order heavily. While acknowledging the harshness of submarine warfare, the Tribunal censured Dönitz for the ambiguity that allowed subordinates to believe killing survivors was permitted. More importantly, the execution of survivors was prosecuted as a war crime. Officers who shot survivors in the water were executed by firing squad.

Current Liability: If SecDef Hegseth or Adm. Bradley issued orders that mirror the Laconia directive—prioritizing the destruction of the “threat” over the duty to rescue or spare survivors—they place themselves in the direct lineage of this adjudicated war crime.

The “Collective Self-Defense” Defense

To counter these charges, the Trump administration has advanced a theory of “Collective Self-Defense.”

The Argument: The White House claims the cartels are waging war against US allies (Mexico, Colombia) and that the drug trade funds this war. Therefore, the US is acting in defense of its allies.

Targeting the Cargo: A leaked rationale from the Office of Legal Counsel suggests the administration views the cocaine itself as the military objective. By this logic, the boat is a logistics vehicle carrying weapons (drugs). The survivors, if they are near the drugs, are essentially “guarding” the military objective and remain targets.

Critique: Legal scholars dismiss this. Narcotics are not “weapons” in the IHL sense. Furthermore, once the boat is destroyed, the cargo is effectively neutralized (sinking). Killing the survivors does not further the military objective of destroying the drugs.

Domestic US Law

While international law provides the moral and diplomatic framework, domestic US law provides the mechanism for actual prosecution and political accountability.

The War Crimes Act of 1996

This federal statute is the bridge between international law and US federal court.

The Statute: It makes it a federal crime for a US national (civilian or military) to commit a “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions. This specifically includes “killing” or “inflicting severe physical pain” on a protected person (such as a shipwrecked combatant).

Application to Hegseth: As a civilian official, Hegseth falls under this jurisdiction. If he ordered the killing of protected persons, he could be indicted. However, the decision to prosecute lies with the Department of Justice, which is part of the executive branch he serves.

No Statute of Limitations: War crimes have no statute of limitations. Hegseth could be charged ten or twenty years from now.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice

For Admiral Bradley and the uniformed officers, the UCMJ is the governing law.

Article 118 (Murder): The unpremeditated or premeditated killing of a human being without justification. If the “armed conflict” theory is rejected by a court-martial, the killing of the survivors is simply murder.

Article 90 (Willful Disobedience): Officers have a duty to obey lawful orders.

Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): This includes the duty to follow the Law of War Manual.

The “Nuremberg Defense”: A subordinate cannot use “I was just following orders” as a defense if the order was manifestly illegal. A “reasonable person” standard applies. A reasonable officer knows that shooting unarmed men in the water is illegal.

The War Powers Resolution

The political struggle plays out through the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

The Clock: The WPR requires the President to terminate hostilities within 60 days if Congress has not declared war or authorized the action. The strikes began in September; by December, the 60-day clock has expired.

The Violation: Continued strikes without authorization are a statutory violation. The administration claims Article II authority overrides the WPR, a long-standing executive branch position. However, because the enemy is a non-state actor (cartel) and not a nation-state, the Article II “repel invasion” justification is factually tenuous.

Congressional Action: Senators have introduced resolutions to cut funding for the operation, using the “power of the purse” to enforce the WPR.

Private Contractors

A shadowing dimension of this crisis is the involvement of private military contractors and the privatization of foreign policy.

Erik Prince and Vectus Global

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, re-emerged in 2025 as a key figure in the region. His new firm, Vectus Global, has operations in Haiti and allegedly maintains ties to the Venezuela pressure campaign.

“Ya Casi Venezuela”: This fundraising movement (“Almost Venezuela”) aimed to raise bounties for the capture of Venezuelan leadership. Prince publicly supported this, stating, “Leave now, criminals, or face unmerciful judgment.”

The Nexus: While Operation Southern Spear is a US military operation, the presence of Prince’s contractors in the region creates a “gray zone.” Intelligence sharing or logistical support between US forces and contractors could blur the lines of liability.

Legal Void: Contractors do not fall under the UCMJ. They are subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. If contractors were involved in targeting or drone operations, prosecuting them for war crimes becomes significantly harder due to jurisdictional complexities.

Congressional Oversight

As of December 2025, the legislative branch has mobilized to investigate the strikes, creating a new arena of liability.

The Congressional Investigations

Both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee have launched inquiries.

Key Players:

Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS): Chairman of SASC. Despite being a Republican, Wicker has pledged a “done by the numbers” investigation and demanded the “ground truth.” He has specifically requested the video and audio logs.

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI): Ranking Member of SASC. He has framed the second strike as a potential war crime and demanded Hegseth testify under oath.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT): Has criticized the “selling out” of Admiral Bradley, focusing on the breakdown of civil-military relations.

The Fight for Evidence

The central battle is over the Kill Chain Tapes.

The Footage: Drone strikes are recorded. The footage will definitively show if the survivors were “clinging to wreckage” or “engaging forces.” The administration’s refusal to release this footage is being interpreted by Congress as an admission of guilt.

The OLC Memos: Senators have demanded the declassification of the September 5, 2025, OLC opinion that justifies the strikes. This memo is the “smoking gun” of the legal rationale. If it is legally flawed, it exposes the administration to charges of acting in bad faith.

The “Scapegoat” Strategy

The White House strategy has been to push liability down to the uniformed leadership. By stating “Admiral Bradley directed the engagement,” they are setting up a firewall.

The Risk: This strategy risks a mutiny of the truth. If Adm. Bradley feels he is being railroaded to protect Hegseth, he may choose to testify fully about the verbal orders he received. This dynamic—civilian masters blaming military servants—is a volatile mix that could lead to explosive testimony in the December hearings.

The Intelligence Question

The entire legal edifice of the strikes rests on the accuracy of the intelligence.

Weaponizing the FTO Label

The term “Narco-Terrorist” is the linchpin.

Legal Alchemy: By designating Tren de Aragua an FTO, the US government attempts to transform a criminal gang into a military enemy. This allows the use of military force rather than police power.

The Evidence Gap: The US has provided no public evidence that the boat struck on September 2 was actually Tren de Aragua or carrying drugs. In previous “drug war” incidents (e.g., the missionary plane shootdown in Peru in 2001), intelligence failures led to the deaths of innocents.

The Consequence: If the boat turns out to have been carrying fishermen or migrants (as alleged by Venezuelan and Colombian sources), the “self-defense” and “armed conflict” arguments collapse instantly. The strike becomes a massacre of civilians.

The Venezuelan Connection

The administration claims the Cartel de los Soles (headed by Maduro) directs these gangs.

Intelligence Assessment: Most experts view Cartel de los Soles as a loose network of corrupt officials, not a hierarchical military organization capable of directing tactical naval operations. The US claim that the gang is a “proxy force” for Venezuela is a high bar to prove in international law.

The Technology Factor

Operation Southern Spear relies heavily on technology, which introduces its own liabilities.

The “Black Box” of Targeting

The use of AI and autonomous systems to identify “suspicious vessels” creates a liability gap.

Algorithmic Bias: If the targeting algorithms are biased toward classifying any small boat on a certain heading as “hostile,” the system is designed to produce false positives (civilian casualties).

The Human in the Loop: The law requires human judgment in lethal force. If the operators are relying too heavily on the machine’s classification, they may be failing in their duty to verify.

The Trinidad Radar

The AN/TPS-80 radar in Trinidad and Tobago is a US military asset on foreign soil.

Host Nation Liability: If this radar was used to vector the strike that killed the survivors, Trinidad and Tobago is arguably a co-belligerent. This opens the host nation to legal action in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Sovereignty Issues: The use of Caribbean nations as “unsinkable aircraft carriers” for US strikes recalls the colonial history of the region, fueling the “anti-imperialist” narrative of the Maduro regime.

What Comes Next

As the investigation unfolds in December 2025, the implications for the future of US warfare are stark.

The “Venezuela Model” of using FTO designations to justify military strikes against criminal groups in peacetime could become the new standard for US power projection. This effectively erases the line between war and peace. It creates a world where the US military can execute “death sentences” against suspected criminals anywhere in the world without trial, simply by labeling them “terrorists.”

For the leaders involved, the liabilities are distinct:

Hegseth gambles on political survival, betting that the “tough on drugs” narrative will shield him from “technical” violations of international law.

Bradley gambles his liberty, hoping the OLC memo protects him from a court-martial.

The US Military risks its professional soul, torn between the duty to obey the President and the duty to uphold the laws of war that distinguish soldiers from murderers.

The September 2025 boat strike was not just a naval engagement. It was a precedent-setting collision that has left the American chain of command battered and legally exposed. As the USS Gerald R. Ford continues its patrol, the ghost of the “Laconia Order” sails in its wake, a reminder that in war, the laws of humanity are often the first casualty—but they are also the final judge.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.