White House Defends U.S. Admiral’s Strike on Alleged Venezuelan Drug Boat — Calls It Lawful Self-Defense, Rejects War-Crime Claims

Washington, D.C., December 2, 2025 — The White House on Monday defended a U.S. admiral’s decision to carry out multiple strikes in September on a vessel suspected of Venezuelan drug-smuggling, saying the operation fell well within the law. The follow-up strike reportedly killed two survivors from an earlier attack — a move that has triggered intense legal and political scrutiny. Reuters+2The Washington Post+2

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt asserted that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had authorized the mission and that Frank M. Bradley (the Navy admiral in command) acted within his authority and in accordance with international law of armed conflict. The strike targeted what U.S. officials called “narco-terrorists” — individuals allegedly tied to drug trafficking and posing a direct threat to U.S. national security. The Washington Post+2Fox News+2

However, some lawmakers from both political parties now call for congressional investigations. Critics — including legal experts — argue that ordering a second strike on survivors clinging to wreckage potentially amounts to a war crime under U.S. and international law. The Washington Post+2TIME+2

According to reports, President Donald J. Trump distanced himself from giving the “kill-everyone” order, expressing uncertainty about the second strike. Still, the White House maintains the mission was justified under the doctrine of self-defense aimed at eliminating an imminent narcotics threat. The Washington Post+2The Washington Post+2

As investigations escalate and bipartisan concerns mount, the episode raises profound questions about the legality, morality, and oversight of lethal U.S. military operations targeting alleged drug traffickers on the high seas.