Defense Secretary Hegseth Under Scrutiny as Admiral Testifies on Controversial Venezuela Strike

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is embroiled in a deepening controversy over a deadly military operation off the coast of Venezuela, prompting accusations of international law violations and drawing sharp criticism from members of his own party. The scandal has intensified following recent congressional testimony from a top naval officer, who took responsibility for the operation after the Defense Secretary appeared to shift the blame amid growing political fallout.

The incident centers on a U.S. military strike against a vessel that the Trump administration claimed, without presenting public evidence, was operated by drug smugglers. While the initial bombing drew attention, it was a subsequent action in September that has triggered significant alarm. According to reports, a second strike was ordered to execute survivors of the first attack, an action that legal experts and even some of Hegseth’s political allies have flagged as a potential grave breach of the laws of armed conflict.

As the international and domestic uproar grew, Secretary Hegseth moved to distance himself from the tactical decisions on the ground. He has been described as “frantically pointing the finger” at Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the senior Navy commander who was overseeing the operation in the region. This public deflection of responsibility placed immense pressure on Admiral Bradley and set the stage for a high-stakes testimony before lawmakers on Thursday.

During the hearing, Admiral Bradley addressed the incident directly, offering a justification for the lethal second strike. He told the congressional committee that the survivors of the initial bombing were not incapacitated but were actively “attempting to continue their drug run.” Bradley’s defense hinged on the observation that the individuals were seen onboard the severely damaged vessel alongside packages believed to contain illegal narcotics. He maintained that the decision to engage them a second time was consistent with the mission’s objectives to halt illicit activities.

However, this explanation was met with immediate and widespread skepticism. The logic of survivors being able to resume a complex smuggling operation on a boat that had been “blown to bits,” as one observer noted, was sharply questioned. During his late-night broadcast, host Stephen Colbert mocked the official account, rhetorically asking, “How were they going to continue their drug run? Ride to Miami on the back of dolphin drug mules?” This sentiment has captured the public’s incredulity regarding the administration’s narrative.

The controversy is notable for the bipartisan nature of the concern it has generated. The fact that members of Hegseth’s own party have publicly stated that the operation may have violated international law indicates the severity of the situation, elevating it beyond typical partisan politics. The targeting of survivors, who under many interpretations of military conduct could be considered non-combatants or hors de combat, raises fundamental questions about the rules of engagement followed by U.S. forces.

This incident has cast a harsh spotlight on the chain of command within the Department of Defense and the accountability structures that govern military operations. The apparent conflict between the accounts of the civilian leadership and the military command has created a crisis of confidence. Lawmakers are now tasked with untangling who authorized the deadly second strike and whether it constituted a lawful military action or an extrajudicial killing.

As the investigation continues, the political and professional futures of both Secretary Hegseth and Admiral Bradley remain uncertain. The testimony from Admiral Bradley, rather than quelling the controversy, appears to have only fueled further questions about the legality and morality of the operation. The administration is now facing intense pressure to provide a more transparent account of the events that transpired off the Venezuelan coast and to clarify who bears ultimate responsibility for an operation that has now sparked a major international and domestic scandal.