Fresh Air | NPR

Episode: Was The U.S. Attack On A Venezuelan Boat A War Crime?

Date: December 3, 2025
Host: Terry Gross
Guest: Alex Horton, Washington Post National Security Reporter

Episode Overview

This episode explores the controversial U.S. military strike on a Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean on September 2, 2025, which resulted in the deaths of all 11 people on board. The Trump administration justified the attacks by alleging the boat carried narco-terrorists and drugs (specifically fentanyl), despite a lack of evidence. The episode investigates whether this attack—and the subsequent killing of two survivors in the water—constitutes a war crime or murder under international law. Alex Horton, the reporter who broke the story, provides detailed insights, context, and reactions to the administration's recent defenses and Congressional scrutiny.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Details of the Incident and Military Orders

• Mission Overview:
  • The U.S. strike was part of a broader White House-directed operation to stop drug trafficking into the U.S. (04:20)
  • The action involved Seal Team 6, not traditional military assets like jets or destroyers.
  • A first strike on the boat killed most crew. Two survivors clung to wreckage before being killed by a second strike.
• Chain of Command:
  • The order originated from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told Admiral Frank Bradley (Joint Special Operations Commander) to "kill everyone on board" (04:50).
  • Horton’s reporting indicates the order to kill all was made clear before the first strike.

2. Watching and Executing the Strikes

• Surveillance:
  • The strike was monitored via real-time drone footage (06:10).
• Killing Survivors:
  • After observing two survivors, Admiral Bradley authorized a second missile strike to kill them, reasoning that both the persons and drugs could be rescued otherwise (06:10).
  • The survivors were “blown apart in the water.” (06:47)

3. Rules of Engagement & International Law

• Land vs. Sea Engagement:
  • On land, re-attacking wounded is sometimes permissible depending on threat and situation (07:53).
  • At sea, those shipwrecked are protected under international law; attacking them is generally prohibited unless they pose immediate threat (09:23).
  • These rules came out of WWII to protect survivors who have no means of defense or escape. (09:23)
• Potential Legal Violation:
  • Legal experts suggest that these actions could constitute murder at sea, not a permissible act of war. Civilian traffickers are not lawful combatants (12:11).

4. Reactions from U.S. Administration

• Hegseth’s Stance:
  • In both public and private comments, Hegseth promoted aggressive use of force and criticized restrictive rules of engagement, preferring to "untie the hands" of warfighters (11:34)
  • Defended the strike, did not see survivors himself but supported "eliminating the threat." (17:01–18:18).
  • Accused media and politicians of “planting fake stories,” expressing open disdain for oversight and legal advice (18:18).
• President Trump:
  • Claimed limited knowledge of the operation; stated, “I want those boats taken out, and if we have to, we'll attack on land also.” (21:28)
  • Supported military force as needed but distanced himself from details. (22:18, 43:04)

5. Congressional and Legal Response

• Debate on War Crime or Murder:
  • Ongoing Congressional review as bipartisan concern rises (04:05, 12:11, 25:18).
  • The distinction between war crime and murder is significant, as legal status hinges on whether the targets were combatants or civilians (25:18–26:30).
  • Horton: “Just because you use the military doesn’t mean whoever you’re attacking is a combatant or a lawful target.” (25:23)
• Accountability:
  • Questions about orders: Were they ambiguous? Who is responsible—Bradley or Hegseth? (10:58, 19:25, 29:09, 33:27)
  • Bradley’s Navy background implies he should know shipwreck protections (26:30).
• Policy Changes:
  • After the attack, subsequent missions reportedly planned more for the possibility of survivors—implying the initial plan was lacking. (23:45)

6. Broader Geopolitical Context

• Relation to Venezuela:
  • The strikes are potentially part of a campaign to pressure Nicolas Maduro’s regime (04:05, 38:03).
  • Most U.S. forces in the Caribbean are not involved in direct strikes—suggesting broader strategic posturing (38:03, 43:04).
• Rationale Issues:
  • Administration linked Venezuelan cocaine trafficking and fentanyl deaths in the U.S., but evidence for fentanyl transport via Venezuela is practically non-existent (39:13–48:50).
  • The Cartel de los Soles is described as loosely organized and not comparable to major cartels like Sinaloa (40:49).
• Escalation Threats:
  • Trump willing to expand campaign to land attacks in Venezuela (22:18, 43:04)
  • Actual risk of war is unclear—depends on targets and responses (46:07).

7. Moral and Strategic Concerns

• Setting International Precedent:
  • Horton warns that violating the rules of engagement jeopardizes U.S. standing and endangers its own personnel if other nations reciprocate (29:34–32:09).
  • “You do not want to be an American sailor...and see a Chinese plane coming...because that pilot’s going to feel a whole different set of ways about whether he can kill me or not.” (31:30)
• Conflicting Governance:
  • The attack on a suspected drug boat contrasts sharply with Trump’s pardon of the former Honduran president convicted for cartel cooperation—highlighting inconsistencies (47:27–50:01).
  • “You don’t smuggle cherries out of Iowa. You smuggle corn. Right? ... This is the region. So how do you square these two things?” (48:50, Alex Horton)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On killing shipwrecked survivors:
  • “They have no ability to do anything except wade in the water and try to survive...there are very clear protections...you can’t shoot them again in a circumstance like this.”
    —Alex Horton (09:23)
• On rules of engagement:
  • “We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement.”
    —Pete Hegseth (11:34)
• On the legal framing:
  • “Just because you use the military doesn’t mean whoever you’re attacking is a combatant or a lawful target.”
    —Alex Horton (25:23)
• Concerning future retaliation:
  • “There is sometimes this tit for tat...If the US doesn’t [comply with law], then it doesn’t matter what we do. And there is this...you do not want to be an American sailor...see a Chinese plane coming...because that pilot’s going to feel a whole different set of ways about whether he can kill me or not.”
    —Alex Horton (31:30–32:09)
• On trafficking claims:
  • “What they’re carrying is more likely marshmallows than fentanyl. That’s how unlikely it’s fentanyl...You don’t smuggle cherries out of Iowa. You smuggle corn. Right?”
    —Alex Horton (48:34, 48:50)
• On accountability:
  • “We are looking for more consistency in the Trumps...hard line approach to drug trafficking.”
    —Alex Horton (50:01)

Important Timestamps

• 04:20 – Horton describes the strike and chain of command.
• 06:10 – Explanation of second strike on survivors.
• 09:23 – Maritime rules of engagement and shipwreck survivor protections.
• 11:34 – Hegseth’s statement on rules of engagement.
• 17:01 – Hegseth defends the strike, attacks media reporting.
• 21:28 – Trump distances himself, signals willingness to escalate.
• 25:18–26:30 – Legal debate: war crime vs murder.
• 29:34–32:09 – Consequences for US global standing and risk of reciprocity.
• 38:03–41:46 – Venezuela’s role in drug trafficking and the “Cartel de los Soles.”
• 43:04 – Discussion of escalating to war or further military action.
• 47:27–50:01 – Inconsistency in drug war rhetoric, contrasting with pardoning a convicted leader.

Flow and Tone

The conversation is direct and probing, blending journalistic investigation with legal and military expertise. Alex Horton brings both the rigor of reporting and personal military experience; Terry Gross presses for clarity amid political posturing and ambiguity. The tone is serious and analytical, with moments of sharp critique and subtle incredulity directed at official narratives.

Summary Takeaways

• The U.S. attack on a Venezuelan boat—particularly the killing of survivors—may have violated international law and set a dangerous precedent.
• Orders from Secretary Hegseth to "kill everyone on board" are at the heart of Congressional and legal scrutiny.
• Administration narratives linking Venezuela to fentanyl trafficking are not substantiated by facts.
• Legal, ethical, and strategic consequences—including the risk of future retaliation against Americans—are underappreciated by current leadership.
• There is significant Congressional concern and growing calls for accountability, as well as debate over the legitimacy of using military force in law enforcement contexts.

For those who haven’t listened:
This episode unpacks a major international incident and offers a rare, step-by-step breakdown of how military, legal, and political frameworks collide—with expert testimony and a critical eye toward government transparency and accountability.