US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth Defends Controversial Caribbean Strike as Lawmakers Launch Investigations

US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has attempted to justify a controversial pair of military strikes on an alleged drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean Sea, invoking the “fog of war” as scrutiny intensifies in Washington over whether the operation may have violated international law.

Speaking on Tuesday during a televised cabinet meeting at the White House, Hegseth addressed mounting questions about the incident, which involved an initial attack that killed nine people aboard the small vessel and a subsequent follow-up strike that targeted the two known survivors. The second strike has prompted fierce debate among lawmakers, legal experts, and human-rights groups who say the Pentagon risks being implicated in a potential war crime.

The uproar has broken out at a politically sensitive moment for President Donald Trump. The administration is weighing whether to expand military operations in the region, including potential action inside Venezuela, where US policymakers continue to challenge the authority of President Nicolás Maduro. The timing has placed heightened attention on Hegseth’s leadership and the strategic direction of US military engagements in Latin America.

During the cabinet meeting, Trump reiterated his support for his defence chief, telling assembled reporters that Hegseth was doing a “great job.” The president said he had been briefed only minimally on the specifics of the Caribbean operation but insisted he had full confidence in the Pentagon’s handling of counter-narcotics missions.

Hegseth, meanwhile, defended the broader military campaign targeting what US officials describe as drug-trafficking networks using the Caribbean Sea as a transport corridor. “Narco-terrorists know you can’t bring drugs through the water and eventually on land if necessary, to the American people,” he said. “We will eliminate that threat.”

However, he sought to create distance between himself and the most controversial element of the September operation — the second strike on the survivors. According to Hegseth, he viewed the initial attack live but did not remain present for the follow-up strike that has sparked international concern. That order, he said, came from Admiral Frank Bradley, the head of US Joint Special Operations Command.

“I did not personally see survivors,” Hegseth said, emphasizing that he believed Bradley had made “the right decision” under the circumstances. He described the scene after the initial strike as chaotic and difficult to interpret. “The thing was on fire … this is called the fog of war,” he said, in one of his sharpest comments directed at reporters. “This is what you in the press don’t understand.”

The White House confirmed on Monday that the second strike had indeed taken place. Trump, however, told reporters he was still seeking further details from the Pentagon. “I haven’t gotten a lot of information, because I rely on Pete,” he said. “To me it was an attack. I wasn’t involved. I knew they took out a boat.”

In remarks that further intensified controversy, Trump added: “I want those boats taken out, and, if we have to, we’ll attack on land also just like we attacked on sea.”

The revelation of the second strike has provoked bipartisan anger on Capitol Hill. Members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have announced formal investigations into the event, citing concerns over whether the survivors posed an ongoing threat or whether they should have been detained rather than targeted again.

While some lawmakers have focused their criticism directly at Hegseth, accusing him of attempting to shift responsibility to Admiral Bradley, others have argued that the entire chain of command needs to be examined. Legal analysts say a central question will be whether the survivors were considered combatants at the time of the second attack and whether there was a lawful military justification for using lethal force.

The Department of Defense has not yet released its internal assessment of the strike, though officials have privately acknowledged that the optics — and the sequence of events — have placed the Pentagon under uncomfortable scrutiny.

The incident has wider implications for US policy in Latin America. Trump’s public remarks about potentially escalating military operations in the region come as relations with several governments remain fragile. Analysts warn that any perception of US overreach, particularly in international waters or inside territorial jurisdictions, could raise tensions and complicate regional diplomacy.

For now, Hegseth remains defiant, framing the operation as part of a broader struggle against transnational crime. But with lawmakers demanding answers and two congressional committees now involved, the pressure on the defence secretary — and the administration as a whole — appears likely to intensify in the weeks ahead.