Congressional Committees Announce Formal Investigation Republican‑led Senate and House Armed Services Committees said they will conduct “vigorous oversight” of the September strikes on suspected drug‑smuggling vessels, seeking to verify the existence of a second missile attack and to determine legal compliance[1]. The committees plan hearings and request documents from the Pentagon and the White House. Their statements signal heightened legislative scrutiny of executive military actions in the Caribbean.

Trump and Hegseth Publicly Reject Second‑Strike Narrative President Donald Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was unaware of any order for a second strike and expressed confidence in Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s judgment, promising an internal review[2]. Hegseth reiterated that the September operation was lawful under U.S. and international law and denied issuing a “no survivors” directive[2]. The Defense Department’s public messaging, including a post by Assistant Secretary Sean Parnell labeling the story “Fake News,” reinforces the administration’s denial[2].

Washington Post Report Triggers Political Backlash The Washington Post alleged that Hegseth ordered a second missile strike after survivors of the first attack, quoting a directive to “kill everybody” on board[1]. Senator Adam Schiff warned the approach could drag the United States into a broader conflict with Venezuela and called for congressional intervention[2]. The report has intensified debate over the transparency and accountability of U.S. covert operations abroad.

Venezuelan Government Condemns U.S. Actions Venezuela’s National Assembly issued a formal condemnation of the strikes, accusing the United States of attempting to destabilize the Venezuelan government and pledging a thorough investigation[1]. The assembly’s statement reflects Caracas’s broader diplomatic protest against perceived U.S. aggression in the region. No retaliatory military response has been announced by Venezuela to date.

Legal Justifications Cited by Defense Officials Hegseth cited approval from both military and civilian legal advisers to justify the September strike, asserting compliance with domestic and international statutes[2]. The administration’s legal framing aims to preempt accusations of unlawful use of force. Critics argue that the lack of publicly available legal opinions hampers independent verification of the claims.