The admiral testified that Pete Hegseth did not give the ‘kill them all’ order, US lawmakers said.

A U.S. Navy admiral testified that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not give the order to “kill them all” during the country’s second controversial military attack on suspected drug ships in the Caribbean, several lawmakers said.

The assurances from Democratic and Republican lawmakers came after viewing video of the Sept. 2 double strike incident and hearing comments from Adm. Frank Bradley in a closed hearing.

The briefing before House members and later senators came as questions continued about the legality of military force used against suspected drug boaters.

The White House said Adm. Bradley was responsible for the strike and that he acted within the law.

On Thursday evening, the U.S. military posted on X that another boat attack in the eastern Pacific under Hegseth’s direction left four dead.

Before news of the strike broke, lawmakers reacted to the testimony, with Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, saying Adm. Bradley was respected and “deserves the respect of all of us.”

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

“Yes, they were transporting drugs. They were not in a position to continue the mission in any way,” Himes said.

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

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

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and Republican Senator Tom Cotton said Adm. Bradley and Hegseth “did exactly what we expected them to do.”

“I saw two survivors trying to capsize a boat carrying drugs bound for the United States,” Cotton said.

Republican Representative Rick Crawford also defended the strike and said there was “no question” it was conducted in a professional manner.

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

It was revealed that there had been two strikes when the First Left survivors raised fresh questions about the legality of the government’s ongoing deadly campaign against boats under disputed rules against targeting wounded combatants.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he had “no problem” with the release of video of the second airstrike. The first strike video has already been released.

American media, including CBS, reported that during this accident, two survivors from the first attack tried to board the boat again before the ship was attacked a second time. A source said the pair appeared to be trying to retrieve drugs.

Adm. Bradley was expected to tell senior U.S. lawmakers on Thursday that the survivors’ boat was a legitimate target because it was believed to still contain drugs, according to a U.S. official who spoke to Reuters.

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

U.S. officials have maintained that the September 2 attacks were legitimate, but the full picture of what happened that day is still emerging.

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

At the time, Hegseth called the report “fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory,” while Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said “the entire story is false.”

The existence of a second strike was later confirmed by the White House. Spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said this week that the order came from Adm Bradley, who acted “in accordance with his authority and the law” and not Hegseth.

On Tuesday, Hegseth said he watched the initial walkout unfold before moving on to another meeting. He said he “never saw any survivors in person,” which he attributed to the burning wreckage and “fog of war.”

Later that day, the Secretary of Defense recalled that he was informed that Admiral Bradley had decided to “sink the ship and eliminate the threat,” which he considered justified.

The issue has raised concerns from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, many of whom have already criticized the military operation more generally.

The United States has expanded its military presence in the Caribbean, with deadly attacks on ships suspected of drug smuggling.

Venezuela has repeatedly condemned the airstrikes and accused the White House of stoking tensions in the region with the aim of toppling the government.

President Trump claimed, without providing evidence, that the airstrikes had significantly reduced drug trafficking via maritime routes.

Evidence that the individuals targeted in each case were drug traffickers was likewise not publicly available.

Several experts interviewed by the BBC raised serious doubts about whether the second strike against survivors on 2 September could be considered legal under international law.

A former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) previously told the BBC that a US airstrike on a suspected drug smuggling boat would be treated as a crime against humanity under international law.

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

The survivors may have had the protection afforded to shipwrecked sailors, or the protection afforded to troops unable to continue the fight.

The Trump administration has characterized the operation in the Caribbean as a non-international armed conflict against suspected drug traffickers.

The rules of engagement in these armed conflicts, as set out in the Geneva Conventions, prohibit targeting injured participants and instead say those participants must be arrested and treated.

Admiral Bradley has yet to make 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.

Carranza’s family has now filed a lawsuit at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) in Washington, BBC Mundo has confirmed.