How the White House account of September boat strike has evolved

A US strike on a suspected drug ship in the Caribbean has become the center of controversy, with changing stories and mounting questions on Capitol Hill.

The first strike on the boat reportedly left two survivors clinging to the burning vessel, while the second strike killed both, raising fears that U.S. forces violated laws governing armed conflict.

It was the first of a series of ongoing attacks that killed more than 80 people in both the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific.

While U.S. officials insist the strike was legal, the full picture of what happened and who is ultimately responsible for the decision is still emerging.

The US public first learned of the strike on September 2, when Trump surprised reporters in the Oval Office by saying that just minutes earlier the US had “shot up a boat, a drug boat” coming from Venezuela.

Later that day, the president wrote on Truth Social that the strike had killed 11 members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year.

Trump's post also included video of the attack, which showed the boat being hit by an unidentified weapon and bursting into flames.

A US official later confirmed to CBS, the BBC's American partner, that a total of four missiles were used in the operation.

At that time, almost no additional information about the target was provided.

Although Trump said the ship was heading to the United States, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the same day that it was “probably heading to Trinidad or some other Caribbean country.”

The next day, Rubio reversed course, saying he was “ultimately heading toward the United States.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News at the time that he watched the strike “live.”

“We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing,” he said.

In the days that followed, U.S. officials maintained that the strike was legally justified.

Similar strikes continued regularly in both the Caribbean and the Pacific in the weeks and months that followed, with the September 2 strike largely overshadowed by an escalating military campaign against drug traffickers.

However, on November 28, the Washington Post reported that two people had survived the first strike on September 2 and that Hegseth had ordered a second attack to kill them.

Hegseth immediately denounced the report as “fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory,” and Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the “entire story was false.”

The report raised concerns among both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

In a joint statement Nov. 29, senior Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee said they would take “bipartisan action to obtain a full accounting” of the operation.

Lawmakers in the House of Representatives made a similar statement.

On that Sunday, November 30, several lawmakers openly expressed concern that the attack violated international law.

One of them, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, told CBS that the “double whammy” strike “rises to the level of a war crime if true.”

Republican Mike Turner, who previously chaired the House Intelligence Committee, said the Sept. 2 incident was “completely outside the scope of anything that was discussed with Congress” regarding the military campaign.

Hours after Senator Kaine made his comments, President Trump addressed the issue directly, telling Air Force One reporters that he “wouldn't want” a second strike on the boat.

He added that Hegseth told him that he did not order the second strike and that he believed him “100 percent.”

The next day, White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt confirmed for the first time that a second strike had been scheduled for September 2.

That order, she said, came from U.S. Navy Admiral Frank Bradley, who headed the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at the time of the attack.

Meanwhile, Admiral Bradley received a promotion. He is now the commander in chief of the US Special Operations Command, to which JSOC reports.

In a prepared statement, Leavitt defended Bradley's actions, saying he was “within his authority and the law.”

During a marathon White House Cabinet meeting on Dec. 2, Hegseth reiterated that he had overseen the first strike before moving on to other meetings.

At the time of the attack, Hegseth said he “personally saw no survivors,” which he attributed to flaming debris and the “fog of war.”

Later that day, the Secretary of Defense recalled, he was informed that Bradley had decided to “sink the boat and eliminate the threat,” a move he considered justified.

The Defense Minister also suggested that it could be several hours before the second strike was ordered.

Trump, for his part, again said he was “not aware of the second strike” and also said he believed it was part of a broader operation.

“To me it was an attack,” he said. “It wasn’t one strike, two strike, three strike.”

By now, some observers have said they believe Bradley could theoretically be prosecuted.

“Under normal circumstances, the case would have been court-martialed,” former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told MS NOW.

“He will be relieved of his duties and face court martial.”

“The administration finds a logic and a rationale for its actions that defies all legal history and all precedent, and that's essentially what we're seeing here,” he added.

On December 4, Bradley briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill, showing footage of the strikes behind closed doors.

Republicans and Democrats emerged from the meetings agreeing on a key issue: Hegseth had not given the order to “kill everyone.” Many also expressed respect and gratitude for Bradley.

However, further understanding of the video diverged.

Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton said it appears that after the initial strike, the two survivors attempted to right the boat and continue toward the United States. This interpretation was offered by other members of his party.

Democrats, however, found the video disturbing: Representative Jim Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said it showed an attack on shipwrecked sailors and called for it to be made public.

The next day, the information continued to flow from the briefings, and with it, different views on its meaning.

CBS and the New York Times reported that survivors climbed onto the hull of the capsized boat and waved their arms above their heads. It is unclear whether they were trying to stop help, brush off further attacks or entice another suspected drug boat, media reported.

CNN and the AP, meanwhile, reported that Bradley told lawmakers the ship appeared to be heading toward another vessel and then heading toward Venezuela's southern neighbor, Suriname.