US lawmakers say Navy admiral testifies that Pete Hegseth did not give order to ‘kill them all’

A U.S. Navy admiral testified that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not order “kill them all” during the second controversial U.S. military strike on a suspected drug-trafficking ship in the Caribbean, several lawmakers said.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers made the confirmation after viewing footage of the Sept. 2 double-whammy incident and hearing Adm. Frank Bradley speak in a closed-door hearing.

The briefing to members of the House of Representatives and later the Senate came as questions continued about the legality of using force against suspected drug ships.

The White House said Gen. Bradley was responsible for the attack and that his actions were lawful.

On Thursday night, the U.S. military posted on X that four people were killed in another vessel attack in the Eastern Pacific under the command of Hegseth.

Lawmakers reacted to the testimony before news of the latest attack broke, with Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, saying Gen. Bradley had his respect and “should have the respect of all of us.”

He added: “But what I saw in that room was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen in my career in public service.”

“Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were unable to continue their mission in any way,” Himes said.

After the briefing, Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, and Himes issued a joint statement calling for the release of the video.

“The briefing leaves us with more questions than answers, and Congress must continue to investigate this matter and provide oversight,” they said.

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Gen. Bradley and Hegseth “acted exactly as we expected.”

“I saw two survivors trying to turn over a drug-laden boat bound for the United States so they could continue fighting,” Cotton said.

Republican House Representative Rick Crawford also defended the strikes and said there was “no question” they were conducted in a professional manner.

Democratic Senator Jack Reed said in a statement that he was “disturbed” by what he saw, adding that his party would continue to investigate the incident.

News of the two attacks on the first survivors raised new questions about the legality of the government’s ongoing deadly campaign against ships because of provisions in the conflict’s rules for targeting wounded combatants.

US President Donald Trump said he had “no problem” with the release of video of the second attack. Video of the first strike has been released.

In this incident, two survivors of the first attack tried to climb back on board before the vessel was hit a second time, according to US media including CBS. A source said it appeared the pair were trying to rescue drugs.

Admiral Bradley will also tell senior U.S. lawmakers on Thursday that survivors are legitimate targets because their ship is still believed to contain drugs, according to a U.S. official who spoke to Reuters.

The Sept. 2 incident was the first in a series of U.S. attacks on ships that have killed more than 80 people in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.

Although U.S. officials insist the September 2 attack was lawful, the full story of what happened that day is still emerging.

The Washington Post first reported last week that two people survived the first attack and that Hegseth allegedly ordered a second attack to kill them.

At the time, Hegseth immediately condemned the report as “fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory,” while Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said “the entire narrative is false.”

The White House later confirmed the existence of the second attack. Press secretary Carolyn Leavitt said this week that the order came not from Hegseth but from Gen. Bradley, who acted “well within his authority and the law.”

On Tuesday, Hegseth said he watched the initial walkout before attending other meetings. He said he “did not personally see any survivors,” which he attributed to burning debris and the “fog of war.”

The Defense Secretary recalled that later that day he was told that Admiral Bradley had decided to “sink the ship and neutralize the threat,” a move he believed was justified.

The issue has drawn attention from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, many of whom have criticized the military operation more broadly.

In addition to launching deadly strikes against vessels suspected of drug smuggling, the United States has also expanded its military presence in the Caribbean.

Venezuela itself has repeatedly condemned the attacks and accused the White House of fanning tensions in the region with the goal of overthrowing the government.

Trump claimed the raids led to a significant reduction in drug trafficking at sea, but offered no evidence.

Evidence that the individuals targeted in each case were drug traffickers was also not publicly provided.

Several experts interviewed by the BBC expressed serious doubts that the second attack on survivors on September 2 could be considered legal under international law.

The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) previously told the BBC that the United States carried out air strikes on ships suspected of drug smuggling. would be considered a crime against humanity under international law.

“These are criminals, not soldiers. The criminals are civilians,” he said.

Survivors may have been protected by the protection provided for shipwrecked sailors or troops unable to continue fighting.

The Trump administration views its operations in the Caribbean as a non-international armed conflict with alleged drug traffickers.

The rules of engagement for such armed conflicts under the Geneva Conventions prohibit the targeting of injured participants and say they should be arrested and cared for.

Admiral Bradley has not made any public comments on the matter.

One of the dozens killed in ongoing US airstrikes is believed to be Colombian Alejandro Carranza, who was last seen on September 14.

BBC Mundo confirmed that Carranza’s family has now lodged a complaint with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) in Washington.