Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley reportedly told members of Congress during a closed-door briefing Thursday that the second strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug-running boat in September was justified.
Ahead of the briefing, The Wall Street Journal reported, Bradley, the senior commander of the operation in the Caribbean, planned to “say he and his legal adviser concluded the two survivors were attempting to continue their drug run, making them and the already-damaged vessel legitimate targets for another attack, two defense officials said.”
“The first part of the strike set the boat on fire and killed nine people, the officials said. It took an hour before the survivors were visible on the live feed, a third defense official said,” according to the outlet.
“Bradley, in making his [second strike] decision, considered that other ‘enemy’ vessels were nearby and that the survivors were believed to be communicating via radio with others in the drug-smuggling network, the officials said,” the Wall Street Journal noted.
The admiral’s account rebutted the allegation made by some members of Congress that the second strike may have constituted a war crime.
“The Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual forbids the killing of shipwrecked personnel or targeting enemy combatants who have surrendered or are unable to fight,” Politico reported.
Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters after Thursday’s briefing that it was a “righteous strike,” and the second strike was “entirely lawful and needful.”
A reporter asked Cotton what exactly he had seen in the video from the second strike.
“I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat — load it with drugs bound for the United States — back over so they could stay in the fight, and potentially, given all the context we heard, of other narcoterrorist boats in the area coming to their aid to recover their cargo and recover those narcoterrorists,” Cotton recounted.
He also pointed out that in a subsequent strike later in the fall, “There is an example where survivors actually were shipwrecked and distressed and not trying to continue on their mission, and they were treated as they should be — as noncombatants. They were picked up by U.S. forces.”
Q: “Was there a ‘kill all’ order from Secretary Hegseth?”
.@SenTomCotton: “No. Admiral Bradley was very clear that he was given no such order to, to give no quarter or kill them all.” pic.twitter.com/ZqLPkCyHSd
— CSPAN (@cspan) December 4, 2025
The Wall Street Journal reported, “In mid-October, the Coast Guard rescued two survivors of an attack on a submersible because they were deemed unable to fight, according to the defense officials.”
Democratic House Intelligence Committee ranking member Jim Himes of Connecticut disagreed with Cotton’s assessment that September’s second strike was justified.
“Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way. People will someday see this video, and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors,” he said.
“The admiral confirmed that there had not been a ‘Kill them all’ order, and that there was not an order to grant no quarter,” Himes added. In other words, he seemed to be saying that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had not issued an order to kill all the narcoterrorists if any survived the airstrikes.
BREAKING NOW: Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley briefs the Senate on the drug boat strikes. The top Democrat on the House Intel Committee says:
“Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way. People will someday see this video and… pic.twitter.com/04MInIX4Sc
— DeVory Darkins (@devorydarkins) December 4, 2025
Hegseth said Tuesday that he backed Bradley’s second strike order.
“Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat … It was the right call, [and] we have his back,” the secretary told reporters during a cabinet meeting.
.@POTUS: “I want those boats taken out, and if we have to, we’ll attack on land also…we’re saving hundreds of thousands of lives with those pinpoint attacks.”@SecWar: “Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat…we have his… pic.twitter.com/sQypqxfqFP
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) December 2, 2025
President Donald Trump said that he was not involved in overseeing the operation.
.@POTUS: “I want those boats taken out, and if we have to, we’ll attack on land also…we’re saving hundreds of thousands of lives with those pinpoint attacks.”@SecWar: “Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat…we have his… pic.twitter.com/sQypqxfqFP
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) December 2, 2025
“I can say this,” he said, “I want those boats taken out, and if we have to, we’ll attack on land, also … We’re saving hundreds of thousands of lives with those pinpoint attacks.”
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
