White House Defends US Navy Strike on Venezuela Vessel Amid Controversy Over Fatal Follow-Up Blast.
The White House on Monday stood by a US Navy commander's decision to authorize a second strike against an alleged drugs boat in the Caribbean Sea, following bipartisan criticism over reports that survivors were killed in the initial blast.
In a statement released by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, officials at the White House insisted that Vice Admiral Frank Bradley acted "within his authority and the law" when he ordered the follow-up strike on September 2. The operation has raised questions about the US military's actions against vessels suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Lawmakers from both parties announced their support for congressional reviews of the US military strikes last weekend, citing a published report that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal order for the second strike. The White House has since backed Hegseth's assertion that Bradley acted lawfully.
However, critics say that the administration is trying to stonewall inquiries into the incident. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer described Hegseth's response as "derogatory" and called on him to release video footage of the strike under oath. Meanwhile, Sen. Jack Reed urged the administration to release unredacted video of the follow-up blast.
President Donald Trump said earlier in the day that he would not have authorized a second strike if he had been aware of the incident. However, he later expressed support for Hegseth's claims and claimed that the reports were "fake news" aimed at discrediting US military personnel.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also weighed in on the controversy during a call with bipartisan lawmakers. The Army general reasserted his trust in Bradley and other commanders but acknowledged the need for further investigation into the incident.
The administration has insisted that the strikes are aimed at disrupting illicit trafficking networks that threaten regional security. Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the operations, saying they were necessary to counter the flow of narcotics into the United States.
As lawmakers begin their oversight inquiry, officials must navigate a complex web of competing interests and competing narratives over what exactly happened on September 2.
The White House on Monday stood by a US Navy commander's decision to authorize a second strike against an alleged drugs boat in the Caribbean Sea, following bipartisan criticism over reports that survivors were killed in the initial blast.
In a statement released by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, officials at the White House insisted that Vice Admiral Frank Bradley acted "within his authority and the law" when he ordered the follow-up strike on September 2. The operation has raised questions about the US military's actions against vessels suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Lawmakers from both parties announced their support for congressional reviews of the US military strikes last weekend, citing a published report that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal order for the second strike. The White House has since backed Hegseth's assertion that Bradley acted lawfully.
However, critics say that the administration is trying to stonewall inquiries into the incident. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer described Hegseth's response as "derogatory" and called on him to release video footage of the strike under oath. Meanwhile, Sen. Jack Reed urged the administration to release unredacted video of the follow-up blast.
President Donald Trump said earlier in the day that he would not have authorized a second strike if he had been aware of the incident. However, he later expressed support for Hegseth's claims and claimed that the reports were "fake news" aimed at discrediting US military personnel.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also weighed in on the controversy during a call with bipartisan lawmakers. The Army general reasserted his trust in Bradley and other commanders but acknowledged the need for further investigation into the incident.
The administration has insisted that the strikes are aimed at disrupting illicit trafficking networks that threaten regional security. Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the operations, saying they were necessary to counter the flow of narcotics into the United States.
As lawmakers begin their oversight inquiry, officials must navigate a complex web of competing interests and competing narratives over what exactly happened on September 2.
I mean, come on, dude, you're the one who's been accused of being a bit... reckless with your tweet fingers. Anyway, back to the actual issue at hand - what exactly happened on that September 2nd? We need more transparency from our leaders about this whole thing. It's not like they can just claim "official business" and expect everyone to swallow it hook, line, and sinker 
I'm calling BS on Hegseth's claims that he gave the verbal order for the second strike - if there's video footage of the follow-up blast, let's see it!
... no wait, I'm also super not cool with it 
. I mean, how can they just go around killing people without even knowing for sure what was going on? It's all so shady 
.
... like, no way dude. This isn't something you just make up and try to spin to save face. The whole thing reeks of BS 
.
... I mean, we can't just trust that everything is cool without knowing all the details, right? 
. Can someone please just give us some straight answers for once? 
I'm really worried about these reports coming out of Venezuela and the US Navy's response... It sounds like there was some serious human error that led to innocent people losing their lives 
I don't think any amount of national security can justify sacrificing lives, you know? 
As a wellness guru, I'm all about living in harmony with ourselves and others, and it seems like the US military's actions are completely out of alignment with that 
We need to get to the bottom of this and make sure that our leaders are held accountable for their decisions 
. And yeah, I get where President Trump is coming from when he says that this whole thing might be "fake news" being spread to discredit US military personnel 
.
. The fact that there are video footage and reports that suggest otherwise seems like something that should be shared with the public...
! Like, who knew having a navy strike on a "drugs boat" could be so dramatic? But seriously tho, I think the White House should just come clean about what really went down – we all want some juicy deets, amirite? 
And can you imagine if this was a video game, with the US Navy as the hero saving the day... but instead, it's like, a real-life crisis? 
I mean, I'm all for keeping our oceans safe and stuff, but let's not gloss over some important questions about accountability, okay? 
Maybe they should just release that video footage already?! 
... like, why did the US Navy commander order a second strike without knowin' about the survivors gettin' killed? 
And what's with all these conflicting stories? It's like, can't we just get some straight answers for once? 
and now everyone's all like 'oh, we trust you guys to do your job'. nope, not buying it 
and what's with the whole "fake news" vibe from trump? like, dude you're not exactly in a position to be criticizing others for trying to get answers 
anyway, gotta give props to senator reed for calling out hegseth's response tho 
. This whole thing feels like a cover-up and it's putting lives at risk again 
. lawmakers are right to want answers and transparency here 
.
. he can't just sweep this under the rug and pretend like nothing happened 
. we deserve better from our leaders. more accountability, more truth-telling 
. this whole thing stinks of cover-up 
. The fact that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is trying to brush it off and claim he was just following procedure doesn't fly in my book 
. And can we please get some real transparency here? Like, release the video footage already?! 
. We need to know if our military is really acting in good faith or just serving their own interests 
and the White House is all "nay we did it right, just trust us" 
meanwhile congress is over here trying to get some deets 
and the prez is like "nope I wouldn't have done it"