Navy Admiral Bradley Faces Congress Over Venezuela Strike Orders/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Admiral Frank Bradley is set to brief Congress on a military strike that allegedly targeted survivors of a suspected drug boat attack. Lawmakers are investigating if the strike, ordered under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, violated international law. The classified hearing follows demands for transparency and accountability.
Military Strike Briefing Quick Looks
- Admiral Bradley to testify in classified congressional session
- Strike killed boat survivors after initial attack near Venezuela
- Lawmakers question legality of orders allegedly from Hegseth
- Legal experts warn of potential war crime implications
- Bradley promoted weeks after ordering the controversial strike
- Pressure builds on Hegseth amid ongoing investigation
- Inspector General to release separate report on Hegseth’s actions
- Bipartisan push for full video and documentation of the operation
Deep Look:
Admiral Bradley Faces Congress Over Controversial Boat Strike That Killed Survivors
WASHINGTON — The commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, is expected to appear Thursday on Capitol Hill to deliver a classified briefing to top lawmakers investigating a deadly U.S. military operation that took place in international waters near Venezuela. The controversial mission, reportedly carried out under orders from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has triggered widespread scrutiny over its legality, as it allegedly involved targeting survivors of an initial strike on a suspected drug-running vessel.
Bradley’s closed-door session with the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees — as well as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee — could be pivotal in shaping the direction of the congressional inquiry. Lawmakers are pushing for transparency and answers after it was reported that Bradley authorized a follow-up strike on two survivors, allegedly to comply with Hegseth’s chilling directive to “kill everybody.”
Legal analysts suggest that, if survivors were deliberately targeted while no longer posing a threat, the action could constitute a war crime. Members of both parties have demanded accountability and full disclosure of the events and chain of command decisions leading to the second strike.
“This is an incredibly serious matter,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “This is about the safety of our troops, and potentially, the legality of orders being carried out in our name.”
Schumer voiced frustration that neither the American public nor Congress has received clear answers about the operation. Lawmakers are pressing for a full account of the orders, especially the rationale behind striking survivors after the initial target — the boat — had already been hit.
Demands for Transparency and Records
Democratic lawmakers have called on the Trump administration to declassify the video footage of the September 2 strike and to release any written orders or communications from Hegseth relating to the mission. The GOP, which holds control of key national security committees, has yet to support those specific requests publicly but has vowed to pursue a “by-the-numbers” investigation.
Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, promised a thorough inquiry, stating, “We’ll find out the ground truth.”
The probe has widened beyond the strike itself to include other instances of Hegseth’s conduct. On Thursday, the Pentagon’s Inspector General was expected to release a report — partially redacted — evaluating Hegseth’s unauthorized use of the Signal messaging app in March to coordinate a strike against Houthi militants in Yemen. According to sources familiar with the report, it concludes that the use of Signal posed operational security risks, even though the Pentagon has tried to characterize the findings as favorable to Hegseth.
The Admiral at the Center
At the time of the Venezuela operation, Admiral Bradley was leading Joint Special Operations Command, responsible for elite U.S. special forces missions. His promotion to Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command followed roughly a month later, and his military career, spanning over 30 years, includes significant time with Navy SEAL units and deployments to Afghanistan post-9/11.
Bradley’s confirmation as admiral passed with bipartisan support. Lawmakers from both parties had praised his military service, but now many are demanding he provide a clear and honest account of the decisions made during the controversial strike.
“I expect Admiral Bradley to shed light on what really happened,” said Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I respect his service, but transparency is essential.”
Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina and longtime supporter of Bradley, acknowledged the seriousness of the issue: “If anyone in the chain of command approved this knowing survivors were targeted, there needs to be accountability.”
Scope of Investigation Expands
The breadth of the congressional investigation remains unclear. However, there are numerous documents and videos that lawmakers believe could fill in critical gaps. The executive branch has so far withheld these materials, raising tensions between Congress and the White House.
Senator Jack Reed, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, confirmed that he and Wicker had requested several key pieces of information: the executive orders that authorized the operations, full videos of the attacks, the intelligence used to identify targets, and any internal guidance used to distinguish between combatants and civilians.
According to sources with direct knowledge, military officials were aware that there were survivors in the water after the initial strike but proceeded with a second attack aimed at sinking the vessel. Whether that decision came directly from Bradley or Hegseth remains one of the most pressing questions for lawmakers.
Political Fallout and Divided Opinions
Despite the controversy, Hegseth has received firm backing from President Donald Trump. Hegseth has attempted to defend his actions by citing the “fog of war” and has claimed he was not present during the second strike. Still, he maintains that Bradley made the correct judgment and had the authority to act.
Some Republican lawmakers have aligned with that defense, emphasizing support for the broader campaign against drug cartels, which Trump has labeled “narco-terrorists.” Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma stated, “I see nothing wrong with what took place,” arguing the administration was justified in its use of military force.
Since September, over 80 people have reportedly been killed in a series of operations tied to the anti-cartel campaign. Critics argue the legal foundation for such actions was always questionable. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, laid direct blame on Hegseth, asserting that even if the defense secretary didn’t order the second strike explicitly, his earlier command set it in motion.
“He may not have been in the room,” Blumenthal said, “but he was in the loop.”
You must Register or Login to post a comment.