AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTYou have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.The new detail further complicates the military’s explanations for its actions during the Sept. 2 strike in the Caribbean Sea.Adm. Frank M. Bradley, left, the top Special Operations commander, showed senior lawmakers a more complete video of the Sept. 2 strike and described his decision to order follow-up strikes during classified sessions on Thursday.Credit...Tierney L. Cross/The New York TimesDec. 5, 2025The two survivors of the U.S. military’s first boat strike on Sept. 2 climbed atop the overturned hull and waved to something overhead, according to multiple people who have seen video of the attack.The signaling by the survivors has been interpreted in different ways. Some of the people viewing the video thought the waving by the survivors could have been an attempt to surrender, which could raise questions about whether the military had violated the rules of armed conflict during the operation.Others who viewed the video said the most logical explanation was that the two survivors had seen the American aircraft above them and started signaling for a rescue. But it is not clear from the video that the survivors had definitely seen the American aircraft.There were no other unknown aircraft or boats in visual range, according to officials who attended classified sessions on Thursday in which military officers briefed lawmakers.The military officers said the survivors could have been trying to beckon to other alleged drug traffickers in a plane or boat to come get them, communications that could have justified the follow-up strike that killed them.But some lawmakers viewing the video rejected that interpretation.The new detail further complicates the military’s explanations for the actions it took during the Sept. 2 strike in the Caribbean Sea and raises new questions about the propriety of the follow-on attack. That strike has become the focus of congressional oversight, though Democrats and experts continue to question the legality of the entire military campaign.But the latest details also highlight the fundamental paradox that has dogged the campaign since it began. People who accept the Trump administration’s legal premise for the overall military operation are more likely to also accept the administration’s justification for killing the survivors.For these people, the waving of the survivors could be interpreted as waving for assistance from other alleged drug runners, which could, in term, be interpreted as continuing their mission to deliver drugs. The efforts to flip the overturned boat hull could be interpreted as efforts to save any cocaine that might have remained in the boat.On the other hand, as a senior military official acknowledged on Friday, critics who do not accept the premise that Mr. Trump’s orders were legal do not believe that the strikes that killed the survivors were legal.For them, the waving of the two men were seen as cries for help from shipwrecked survivors.The Sept. 2 strike was the Trump administration’s first attack on a boat suspected of carrying drugs, so the people on the vessel would have had no knowledge that the United States was beginning a military campaign against drug trafficking.It was not until October that the Trump administration first disclosed that President Trump had “determined” that the United States was in a formal armed conflict with drug cartels and that the crews of boats suspected of carrying drugs for them were “combatants.” A wide range of legal experts have rejected that contention.In any case, the people killed in the Sept. 2 attack, a month earlier, may not have known that the U.S. military considered them combatants in an purported armed conflict. That is a reason to think it may not have occurred to them that they could “surrender,” so if they were signaling to an American aircraft they may have been merely pleading for rescue.The murkiness of the military campaign against Venezuela and the drug cartels may also have caused the American military to conflate the conflict in the Caribbean with two decades of war against Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan and the Middle East.With the global war against terrorism, “all three branches of the government came around to the view that the United States was engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda,” said Matthew Waxman, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs who is now a law professor at Columbia. “The idea that now we’re engaged in an armed conflict with a set of drug cartels is legally absurd.”The military has not said what type of aircraft launched the first strike, and it is not known if the survivors could have identified it. But officials who have watched the video said it is also not clear if the survivors even knew the initial explosion was an attack.Adm. Frank M. Bradley, the top Special Operations commander, met with various senior lawmakers all day Thursday. He showed them a more complete video of the Sept. 2 strike and described his decision to order follow-on strikes. The video shown to Congress was far more zoomed-in and clearer than the grainy video released soon after the Sept. 2 strike, according to officials who watched it.Admiral Bradley was working off an order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to sink the boat, destroy the drugs and kill the people transporting the drugs. Mr. Hegseth had approved planning by Admiral Bradley that allowed for follow-on strikes. But in meetings with lawmakers, Admiral Bradley said Mr. Hegseth had not issued a “no quarter” order that would have required killing the survivors in any circumstances.After a day of scrutiny over the boat strikes, U.S. Southern Command announced on Thursday evening that the military had killed four more people in the Eastern Pacific in the 22nd boat attack. In a social media post with an accompanying video, Southern Command said that the strike was carried out at the direction of Mr. Hegseth.Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy for The Times.A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 6, 2025, Section A, Page 9 of the New York edition with the headline: Video Complicates U.S. Boat Strike Explanation. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | SubscribeRelated ContentAdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTShared with you by a Times subscriberYou have access to this article thanks to someone you know. Keep exploring The Times with a free account.