The Trump administration is facing a political and legal firestorm over reports that its military carried out a second strike on a boat in the Caribbean Sea that Washington claims was carrying drugs, after two people survived the initial attack.

At the heart of the controversy are two questions: Who ordered the second strike on the boat in September, and was it legal?

Here’s what we know:

What happened?

On September 2, 2025, the US military struck a boat in the Caribbean during Operation Southern Spear, a major campaign that the administration of President Donald Trump claims is aimed at dismantling drug-trafficking networks.

The first strike destroyed the vessel and killed nine people. Two survivors were left clinging to the debris.

According to The Washington Post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a verbal instruction, which its reporting described as an order “to kill everybody”.

The mission’s commander, Admiral Frank Bradley, then ordered a second strike – one that killed the two survivors.

Experts have called the second attack – what in military jargon is known as a “double tap” strike – illegal. The strikes have drawn criticism not just from Democrats but from several Republicans in Congress, who have pledged to lead investigations into what happened.

The Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee announced on Friday that it planned to ensure “oversight” on the strikes. “The Committee is aware of recent news reports – and the Department of Defense’s initial response – regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” the committee’s chairs, Republican Senator Roger Wicker and Democratic Senator Jack Reed, said in a statement. “The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances,” they said.

The House Armed Services Committee separately said it was seeking “a full accounting of the operation in question”.

Congressional committees have sought audio recordings and other evidence to piece together how the order was given.

So far, the broader US operation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean has killed more than 80 people and targeted more than 20 boats.

What has Pete Hegseth said?

Hegseth called the report “fake news” on social media, saying the boat strikes were “in compliance with the law of armed conflict – and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command”.

But he also appeared to justify the double-strike.

“The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people,” Hegseth said in a social media post on Friday evening. “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”

Earlier this year, the Trump administration formally labelled the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua a terrorist group. It also accused Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, of leading the Cartel de los Soles – which US officials describe as a drug-smuggling network involving senior figures in the country’s government and armed forces.

In reality, the Cartel de los Solos is not a cartel – just a broad term used by Venezuelans for corrupt senior officials. And the US administration’s own Drug Enforcement Agency lists other countries – not Venezuela – as the major sources of narcotics entering the US. While Trump has repeatedly claimed that Tren de Aragua is a front for Maduro, his own intelligence agencies have concluded that there is no link between the gang and the Venezuelan president.

Have Trump and the White House contradicted each other?

Answering questions on Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said his administration “will look into” the reports of the second strike on the boat on September 2.

But he added that “I wouldn’t have wanted that – not a second strike.”

He noted that Hegseth told him “he did not order the death of those two men.”

In the nearly two dozen subsequent strikes by the US military on boats, US troops have, in several cases, helped rescue survivors and have then repatriated them to the countries they belong to.

However, in contrast to Trump’s statement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Hegseth in justifying the second strike on September 2.

“The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self-defence to protect Americans and vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict,” she said, in response to a question from a reporter on Monday evening.

So who approved the strike?

According to the White House, Hegseth authorised Admiral Bradley to carry out the September 2 “strikes” – suggesting that the defence secretary gave the mission commander the go-ahead to carry out multiple attacks on the boat if needed.

“Secretary Hegseth authorised Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” Leavitt told a media briefing on Monday.

But the actual decision to carry out the second strike was Bradley’s, Leavitt said.

“Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law. He directed the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat of narco-terrorists to the United States was completely eliminated,” she said.

Why the question of who ordered it matters

According to experts, a second strike killing survivors was illegal.

“Instead of having due process and a criminal prosecution, the Trump administration has decided to be judge, jury and executioner, and on their own claim that these individuals are carrying drugs, ordering them killed, which is extrajudicial killing, which is murder,” Rachel VanLandingham, a military expert at Southwestern Law School, told Al Jazeera.

“That second strike against individuals who are shipwrecked, clinging desperately to the side of their boat wreckage – that’s a war crime. It’s a war crime because those individuals who are shipwrecked have protected status under the law unless they were, for example, shooting a gun at somebody. But, otherwise, they’re protected,” she added.

Legally, the US can only use force if there’s a real threat, so identifying the decision-maker is key to judging whether the strike followed the rules, said experts.