Timeline of U.S. Maritime Strikes and Alleged Follow‑up Since early September 2025, the Trump administration has carried out lethal missile strikes on suspected drug‑smuggling vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia, killing more than 80 people [1]. A Washington Post report alleges a second strike was ordered on 2 September after survivors of the first attack were identified [1][2]. The report claims Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed “kill everybody” on board, a claim the Defense Department denies [2].

Administration’s Public Defense and Denials Defense Secretary Hegseth labeled the Washington Post story “fake news” and asserted the September strike complied with U.S. and international law [1][2]. President Donald Trump said he trusts Hegseth 100 percent, claimed he was unaware of any order for a second strike, and promised to investigate the allegation [2]. Assistant Secretary Sean Parnell posted on X that the narrative about a “no survivors” order is false, reinforcing the administration’s denial [2].

Congressional Reaction and Oversight Plans Republican‑led Senate and House Armed Services Committees announced “vigorous oversight” to investigate the strikes and determine the facts [1]. Senator Adam Schiff warned the approach could drag the United States into war with Venezuela and called for congressional intervention [2]. Both parties emphasized the need for transparency amid growing public scrutiny [1][2].

Venezuelan Government’s Condemnation Venezuela’s National Assembly condemned the attacks, accusing the United States of attempting to destabilize the government and pledging a thorough investigation [1]. The assembly’s statement underscores Caracas’s view that the strikes violate sovereign rights and international norms [1]. No Venezuelan officials have confirmed casualties beyond the U.S. figures.

Media Narrative and Information Dispute The Washington Post’s reporting sparked a dispute over the existence of a “no survivors” directive, with the Defense Department and Hegseth rejecting the claim [2]. Sean Parnell’s X post framed the coverage as “Fake News,” reflecting the administration’s broader effort to control the narrative [2]. The divergent accounts highlight a contested information environment surrounding the September operations [1][2].