Members of Congress said they will investigate whether the US military broke the law by killing two survivors of a strike on a suspected drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean. The White House defended the strike as legal, Reuters reported.
Here's a look at potential legal violations in the attack, which rights groups say could amount to murder or a war crime.
What happened?
The White House said US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the September 2 strikes that destroyed a boat in the Caribbean with 11 people on board. The attack was the first in a campaign of strikes against suspected drug traffickers off the coast of Venezuela.
Hegseth, who has vowed to restore the military's "warrior culture," is under scrutiny over the attack after the Washington Post reported that the commander overseeing the operation ordered a second strike to kill two survivors clinging to the wreckage of the boat, fulfilling the Pentagon chief's order to kill everyone.
The White House denied the report, and the facts surrounding the attack remain unclear.
Hegseth said he watched the first strike remotely in real time but saw no survivors in the water and went to another meeting. Hours later, he learned that Admiral Frank Bradley had ordered the second strike.
Hegseth and the White House have not acknowledged that there were any survivors of the first attack, but have defended the subsequent one. Trump has said he would not want a second attack and will investigate.
Hegseth has said he supports Bradley's handling of the operation, saying, "We support him."
Since September 2, at least 21 strikes on suspected drug shipments have been carried out, killing more than 80 people. The strikes come as the Trump administration steps up pressure to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, whom the administration calls an illegitimate leader.
Was the strike legal?
The killing of suspected drug traffickers who pose no immediate threat of serious harm to others would be murder under U.S. and international law. But the United States has characterized the attacks as a war on drug cartels, calling them armed groups.
The administration has said its strikes are consistent with international rules known as the laws of war or the law of armed conflict. These international laws require the United States to distinguish between civilians and combatants, to avoid attacks that cause disproportionate harm to civilians, to limit force to legitimate military objectives, and to avoid unnecessary suffering.
The laws allow for the use of deadly force in self-defense, and the Trump administration has said that drug cartels pose an imminent threat to the United States. The administration has defined illegal drugs as weapons and said the gangs have caused thousands of American deaths.
Human rights groups including Amnesty International have condemned the attacks as murder, and several legal experts have said that the drug cartels do not meet the accepted international definition of an armed group, which is understood to mean an organization such as "al-Qaeda" that possesses the means to carry out sustained violent attacks in support of political or ideological goals.
Critics say that designating the groups as terrorists does not legitimize the attacks. U.S. attacks on groups like Al Qaeda were considered legal not because they were designated as terrorist, but because Congress authorized strikes against groups linked to the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Congress, which has the power to declare war, did not authorize attacks on drug cartels.
Even if the campaign against drug boats had been authorized by Congress, some former military lawyers have argued that a second strike on survivors of the first September 2 attack would have been a violation of military law and a war crime if the military had knowingly killed the survivors.
The Department of Defense's Law of War Manual prohibits attacks on combatants who are incapacitated, unconscious, or shipwrecked, provided they refrain from combat or do not attempt to escape. The manual cites the shooting of shipwreck survivors as an example of a "manifestly unlawful" order that should be refused.
Can the strikes be challenged in court?
U.S. lawmakers can subpoena officials, place limits on the president's use of military force and cut off funding.
Although Republicans, who control Congress, are reluctant to oppose the president, some members of the party have expressed growing concern about the strikes. Bradley will be questioned by members of Congress today in a classified briefing.
The lawsuits would face major hurdles in U.S. courts, as judges often defer to the president on security matters, and it is unclear whether anyone would have standing to sue.
The sole survivors of the four-month campaign have been returned to their home countries. Legal experts say that if they had been detained, they might have been able to challenge their detention and the legality of the strikes.
U.S. allies, including France, have raised concerns that the strikes were illegal, but international tribunals are unlikely to play a role in the case. The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, which tries serious, large-scale war crimes. The United States also has veto power in the UN Security Council.
Can military leaders be prosecuted?
The US military and the Department of Justice have the authority to investigate and ultimately charge anyone who broke the law.
It will be important for investigators to understand who ordered the second strike, what the intent of the order was, whether the boat was seaworthy after the first strike, whether there were survivors, and when they were found.
If the investigation finds that unlawful killings were committed, prosecutors may press charges of murder or war crimes. Both Hegseth and Bradley could face legal liability, although there is little precedent for bringing combat-related charges against a senior officer.
As a civilian, Hegseth will be investigated and prosecuted by the Department of Justice and tried in federal court.
Members of the U.S. military have been convicted of war crimes in other cases, and high-ranking officers have been convicted of personal misconduct through the military justice system.
Bradley and other members of the military involved in the strike could be prosecuted in a military court. A defendant cannot claim to have been following orders if those orders were clearly illegal. The defendants could argue that Hegseth's statements unfairly tainted the criminal prosecution against them.
Trump can pardon anyone who has been convicted of a federal or military crime.