WASHINGTON – Admiral Mitch Bradley told Capitol Hill lawmakers on Thursday that Pete Hegseth did not direct military personnel to “kill them all” or to grant “no quarter” in a follow-up counternarcotics strike that officials say killed two survivors, according to members of Congress who attended a classified briefing.
The exchange intensifies congressional scrutiny of Pentagon targeting rules and the treatment of shipwrecked and helpless persons after maritime encounters. Lawmakers pressed for full, unedited strike footage and additional operational records as they weigh whether existing guidance adequately protects noncombatants while allowing effective disruption of illicit smuggling. For broader congressional reporting, see our Congress Coverage.
Why this matters
The dispute centers on whether U.S. forces lawfully targeted individuals who were rendered helpless after a maritime encounter. That determination has implications for military targeting policy, international legal obligations under the Law of War, and oversight of counternarcotics operations the administration says are critical to disrupting drug shipments that threaten public safety and national security.
Background
The incidents at the center of the hearings began with a Sept. 2 counternarcotics strike in the Caribbean. Lawmakers and officials say two people survived the initial attack and were later killed in a second strike. Subsequent strikes in October resulted in additional casualties and at least one survivor who was recovered by a partner nation, officials said.
- Sept. 2: Initial strike killed multiple people; two survivors remained, according to officials.
- Oct. 16: A separate strike killed two; officials say two survivors were captured and returned to Colombia and Mexico.
- Oct. 27: A series of four strikes killed 14; one survivor was left for retrieval by the Mexican coast guard, according to officials.
The episode drew wider attention after media reports quoted unnamed sources saying Hegseth urged a more forceful approach and used the phrase “kill them all.” Lawmakers sought clarification from the defense establishment about whether such an order was given. According to a Fox News report, Admiral Bradley told lawmakers he was not given that order.
Details from officials and records
Members of Congress who attended Bradley’s closed briefings said the admiral reiterated that he had not received orders to deny quarter or to execute survivors. “The admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill them all order and that there was not an order to grant no quarter,” Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., told reporters after the meeting.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Bradley made the same point. Cotton also said some of the footage suggests survivors may have been attempting to recover their vessel and could have posed a threat by calling for help, a condition Pentagon officials have cited as relevant to assessing ongoing danger.
Pentagon officials have argued that survivors at sea may retain the ability to summon assistance, and that such a capability could constitute an ongoing threat to U.S. forces or to the operation. Bradley, according to lawmakers, said he was not ordered to carry out unlawful killings. Hegseth has publicly said he monitored the first strike in real time, said he was not present for later actions, and denied giving direct orders to target survivors while expressing support for commanders on the scene.
Officials have told lawmakers they are compiling operational logs, after-action reports and command timelines as part of internal reviews. Lawmakers sought access to full, unedited video from the Sept. 2 operations and related engagements. Some members said the clips they saw were difficult to interpret without context such as sensor metadata, communications logs and chain-of-command records.
Legal standards and oversight
U.S. forces operate under the Law of War, including the DoD Law of War manual and applicable treaty obligations, which protect persons rendered hors de combat, such as shipwrecked survivors or the wounded. Under those rules, once an individual is rendered incapable of fighting, they are not a lawful target. At the same time, commanders must assess whether a person retains a capability to pose an imminent threat, such as summoning hostile forces or operating a weapon.
Oversight mechanisms include congressional inquiries, internal Pentagon investigations and potential reviews by the Department of Defense inspector general. Lawmakers from both parties said they expect follow-up requests and formal inquiries to clarify whether targeting decisions complied with legal obligations and established rules of engagement.
Reactions and next steps
Reactions on Capitol Hill were mixed. Several Democrats described the footage they saw as disturbing and urged full transparency and possible legal review. “I think it’d be hard to watch the series of videos and not be troubled by it,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said after viewing material presented by Bradley.
Republican lawmakers defended the military’s judgment and cautioned against second-guessing split-second decisions made in complex maritime environments. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, warned against using the incident for political point-scoring and pointed to historical precedent for similar counternarcotics operations.
Several lawmakers are likely to press the Defense Department to release complete, unedited footage and to provide detailed timelines, sensor logs and communication records. Pentagon officials say they are reviewing footage and operational logs as part of internal oversight and in response to congressional inquiries. Depending on the findings, potential outcomes include revisions to targeting guidance, additional training for maritime interdiction teams, or formal investigations into adherence to the Law of War.
Analysis
The exchange underscores a persistent tension in U.S. counterthreat operations: commanders must balance force protection and mission success against legal and ethical obligations to protect persons who are no longer a threat. For Congress, the case presents questions about whether current rules, training and oversight are adequate to prevent unlawful targeting while enabling effective disruption of transnational criminal networks.
Accountability mechanisms will matter for public trust. Lawmakers seeking full documentation aim to ensure that decisions made in the use of lethal force can be independently evaluated, that rules of engagement are consistently applied, and that any policy gaps are addressed through clear guidance or statutory action where appropriate. Expect continued congressional hearings, requests for unredacted material, and debate over whether DoD guidance and training should be tightened to reduce ambiguity in maritime encounters.
