Investigating Boat Strikes: A 120th Congress Oversight Plan
Lethal Boat Strikes and the Rule of Law: A Lawful Investigative and Legislative Plan for the 120th Congress
By Corey J. Biazzo, Esq., Biazzo Law, PLLC — Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program. Country over Party. Patriot over Partisan.
In short: Since September 2, 2025, the U.S. military has carried out more than 70 lethal strikes on small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that the government says were carrying drugs. Independent trackers count roughly 240 people killed. Congress never authorized force against drug cartels. The government has not publicly identified the dead or shown what the boats carried. In the very first operation, a follow-up strike killed two survivors clinging to wreckage. The United States has long held that drug trafficking is a crime to be met with arrest and trial, and that killing outside lawful armed conflict or genuine self-defense is extrajudicial killing. This guide gives members of the 120th Congress, of both parties, a lawful plan to build the record, preserve the evidence, compel testimony and documents with a valid legislative purpose, work with foreign governments and victims' families, and pass laws to restore those limits.
Key facts at a glance
Item | What the public record shows |
Campaign | Called "Operation Southern Spear"; first strike September 2, 2025; strikes continued into October 2026 |
Scale | At least 70 strikes and about 235–243 deaths, depending on the tracker (as of late October 2026) |
Legal theory | The administration told Congress in fall 2025 that the U.S. is in a "non-international armed conflict" with cartels it calls "unlawful combatants"; a classified Justice Department opinion reportedly supports the strikes |
Congressional authorization | None; war powers resolutions failed in both chambers, including a 215–215 House tie on January 22, 2026 |
September 2, 2025 follow-up strike | Two survivors were killed in a second strike; the White House confirmed it occurred and called it lawful |
Oversight so far | Closed-door briefings; a Pentagon Inspector General evaluation (opened May 2026) limited to whether targeting procedures were followed, not legality |
Cost | The Pentagon Inspector General reported about $647 million through March 31, 2026 |
Victims' claims | Burnley v. United States (D. Mass., filed January 27, 2026); a petition by a Colombian family at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (December 2025) |
International reaction | The UN human rights chief called the strikes "unacceptable" extrajudicial killings; Colombia suspended intelligence sharing; the United Kingdom reportedly paused some sharing |
What happened, and what do we actually know?
Most of what the public knows comes from government announcements and news reporting, not from tested evidence. That gap is the reason Congress needs to investigate.
September 2, 2025: The President posted video of a strike on a boat the government said came from Venezuela, carrying members of Tren de Aragua, a gang designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Eleven people were killed. The Washington Post later reported that Secretary Hegseth gave a verbal directive to "kill everybody" and that Admiral Frank M. Bradley ordered a follow-up strike on two survivors clinging to wreckage. Secretary Hegseth called the report false and said he did not personally see survivors. The White House confirmed the follow-up strike and said it was lawful.
Fall 2025: The administration notified Congress that it considers the U.S. to be in a "non-international armed conflict" with designated cartels. Strikes spread from the Caribbean to the eastern Pacific.
October 2025: On October 14, a strike killed six people, including two men from Trinidad and Tobago, Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo; their families say they were fishermen and farm workers going home. On October 16, two survivors of a strike were rescued and sent home to Ecuador and Colombia rather than prosecuted.
December 4, 2025: Admiral Bradley briefed lawmakers in closed session, and some viewed video of the September 2 operation. Members of both parties described what they saw very differently.
2026: Strikes slowed after the January 2026 U.S. operation that captured Nicolás Maduro, then continued. In May 2026, the Pentagon Inspector General opened an evaluation of whether the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle was followed. The evaluation expressly does not address legality. Strikes resumed in August after a pause and continued through October 2026.
What remains unknown. The government has not publicly released the names of those killed, the evidence that each boat carried drugs or was tied to a designated group, the legal opinion it relies on, the rules of engagement, or full video. Those are exactly the records a lawful congressional investigation can seek.
For earlier reporting, see our posts Boat Strikes, Due Process, and What Congress Can Do in 2027 and Massie, Hegseth, and Impeachment: Why Congress Must Act Now.
What law governs lethal force against suspected smugglers?
The core rule is simple: outside lawful armed conflict or genuine self-defense against an imminent threat, the United States arrests and prosecutes suspected criminals. It does not kill them. The question for Congress is whether that rule was broken, and whether the law needs to be clearer.
Authority | What it says | Why it matters here |
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 11–14 | Congress declares war, raises and supports armies, provides a navy, and makes rules for the armed forces | Congress has not authorized force against drug cartels |
War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548 | Reports within 48 hours of introducing forces into hostilities; withdrawal within 60 days (plus 30) absent authorization | Whether the clock ran, and whether reports were complete |
8 U.S.C. § 1189 (foreign terrorist organizations) | Designation triggers sanctions and criminal penalties for material support | A designation is not an authorization to use military force |
2001 AUMF (Pub. L. 107-40) | Force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and associated forces | Does not reach drug cartels |
14 U.S.C. § 522; 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501–70508 | Coast Guard boarding, search, and arrest at sea; prosecution of drug smuggling on covered vessels | The established path is interdiction and trial; Navy ships often support it with embarked Coast Guard teams |
Fifth Amendment due process | No person may be deprived of life without due process | How far it protects noncitizens on the high seas is contested, but it frames the policy question |
Law of armed conflict: Geneva Convention II, art. 12; common article 3; DoD Law of War Manual | Even in war, the shipwrecked and those out of the fight ("hors de combat") may not be attacked; denying quarter is prohibited | The September 2 follow-up strike |
War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2441 | Makes grave breaches and certain violations of common article 3, including murder of persons out of the fight, federal crimes | Applies only if an armed conflict exists |
18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 1111 | Murder within U.S. special maritime jurisdiction | If no armed conflict exists, whether a "public authority" justification applies |
Executive Order 12333, § 2.11 | Bars assassination | Executive-branch policy, not statute |
UN Charter art. 2(4); OAS Charter | Bar the use of force against other states except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization | Strikes near other nations' coasts |
The other side, stated fairly. The administration argues that cartels designated as terrorist organizations are armed groups attacking Americans through drugs that kill tens of thousands each year. It says the President may use force under his Article II powers to defend the nation, and that a classified Justice Department opinion supports the strikes. Presidents of both parties have used force without specific congressional approval, including in Libya in 2011 and Syria in 2017 and 2018. Some senators who saw the September 2 video, including Senator Tom Cotton, said all four strikes that day were lawful. The White House said the follow-up strike was in self-defense to destroy the boat.
Congress does not need to resolve every legal dispute in advance to investigate. It needs the facts. Whether each person killed was a lawful target, whether survivors posed any threat, and what lawyers advised are factual questions. Only records and sworn testimony can answer them.
Where does Congress get the power to investigate, and what is the legislative purpose?
Congress may compel testimony and documents on any subject on which it could legislate. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957); Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975). War, military rules, and military funding are core Article I subjects. Every request in this plan should name the reform it informs.
Constitutional source | Legislative question | Records and witnesses it supports |
Art. I, § 8, cl. 11 (declare war) and the War Powers Resolution | Should Congress tighten reporting, close the "armed conflict by notice" gap, or cut off funds when the 60-day clock runs? | War Powers reports, the armed-conflict notice, legal opinions |
Art. I, § 8, cl. 14 (rules for the armed forces) | Should rules of engagement, survivor rescue, and post-strike review be set by statute? | Rules of engagement, targeting packages, orders, strike video |
Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 (offenses on the high seas and against the law of nations) | Should Congress define when lethal force is lawful against suspected smugglers, and strengthen the War Crimes Act? | Evidence about each vessel and person, legal reviews |
Art. I, § 8, cl. 12–13 and Art. I, § 9, cl. 7 (army, navy, appropriations) | Should funds be barred for lethal strikes on suspected smugglers absent authorization? | Cost data, funding sources, the Inspector General's $647 million figure |
Art. I, § 8, cl. 3 (foreign commerce) and § 8, cl. 18 | Should the Coast Guard interdiction model be required, and should FTO designations be clarified? | Coast Guard and Navy procedures, interdiction data |
Senate advice and consent (Art. II, § 2) | Do nominees and treaties need conditions on lethal-force policy? | Testimony of senior nominees |
Drafting tips. Put the purpose in the committee's authorizing resolution and each cover letter. Seek official records first. Keep requests focused on decisions, legal advice, and evidence, not on junior service members. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. 848 (2020), set extra tests only for a President's personal papers; these are official military records. For enforcement steps if agencies refuse, see our congressional subpoena playbook.
What does a lawful investigative plan look like?
The plan runs in five phases. Each one produces a record that the public, the courts, and the next Congress can rely on.
Committees with jurisdiction. House and Senate Armed Services cover military operations, rules of engagement, and the law of war. House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations cover war powers, foreign relations, and FTO designations. House and Senate Judiciary cover the War Crimes Act, federal criminal law, and the Justice Department's legal opinions. The intelligence committees cover the intelligence used to pick targets. Homeland Security committees cover the Coast Guard. Defense appropriations subcommittees cover cost.
Phase 1, Days 1–30: Organize and preserve. Adopt committee rules and a resolution stating the legislative purpose. Send preservation letters (next section). Ask the Pentagon Inspector General to expand its evaluation to legality and the September 2 follow-up strike, and ask GAO to review cost and War Powers compliance.
Phase 2, Days 30–90: Voluntary requests. Request a strike-by-strike accounting, classified and unclassified. Request the legal opinions and rules of engagement. Invite transcribed interviews of military lawyers and operational officers. Open a secure channel for whistleblowers.
Phase 3, Days 60–150: Compulsory process. Issue subpoenas where requests are refused, each tied to a named reform. Log privilege claims and negotiate accommodations in writing.
Phase 4, Days 90–180: Hearings. Hold public hearings with independent law-of-war experts, former military lawyers, Coast Guard leaders, and victims' families, then closed sessions for classified material, then public testimony from senior officials. Release a staff report with an unclassified annex of exhibits.
Phase 5, Day 180 on: Legislate and follow up. Mark up reforms, attach conditions to the NDAA and defense appropriations, and refer any evidence of possible crimes to proper authorities without prejudging guilt.
The same phases appear in our investigative plan guide. Our FOIA litigation shows why Congress's own power to compel records matters. See FOIA Lawsuits Show Why the 120th Congress Must Investigate.
How should Congress preserve the evidence?
Send preservation letters first. Strike video, sensor data, and chat logs may be on short retention schedules.
Department of Defense: the Secretary's office, the Joint Staff, U.S. Southern Command, Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, Special Operations Command, and the Navy
Intelligence agencies whose information was used to select targets
Department of Justice: the Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard
The White House Counsel and the Archivist, under the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act
Each letter should cover full-motion video and sensor feeds; targeting packages and strike logs; operations-center chat, email, texts, and messaging apps (including disappearing-message apps); legal reviews; casualty and battle-damage assessments; search-and-rescue records; and personal devices used for official business. It should ask for written confirmation within 14 days.
What documents and witnesses should Congress seek?
Priority documents
Record | Why it matters | Reform it informs |
Justice Department legal opinion(s) on the strikes | The legal basis the executive relied on | Publication of legal opinions; War Powers reform |
The armed-conflict notice and all War Powers reports | What Congress was told, and when | War Powers reporting rules |
Execute orders, rules of engagement, and any "kill everybody" or similar directive | Who authorized what | Statutory limits; War Crimes Act |
Full, unedited video of the September 2 operation | Whether survivors posed any threat | Survivor-protection rules |
Strike-by-strike target packages: evidence of drugs and group ties for each vessel | Whether each target met the government's own standard | Strike accounting requirement |
Identities and nationalities of those killed | Accountability and compensation | Victim notification and compensation |
Military lawyer advice and any dissents | Whether legal objections were raised or overruled | Protection for military lawyers |
Search-and-rescue decisions, including the October 16 rescue | Why survivors were rescued in some strikes and not others | Mandatory rescue rules |
Coast Guard interdiction data | Whether arrest was a feasible alternative | Interdiction-first requirement |
Cost records (Inspector General's $647 million estimate) | What taxpayers paid | Appropriations conditions |
Witness sequence (by role, not name)
Order | Witness | Purpose |
1 | Independent law-of-war experts and former military lawyers | Legal standards |
2 | Coast Guard leaders | How interdiction and arrest work |
3 | Victims' family members (voluntary, with interpreters) | The human record |
4 | Military lawyers in the chain of command | Advice given (expect privilege disputes) |
5 | Commanders of the operations, including the September 2 commander | Orders and decisions |
6 | Senior civilian officials at Defense and Justice | Policy and legal basis |
When to subpoena. Use subpoenas after written requests fail. Each should list the records, the time period, the legislative purpose, and the reform it informs. Expect claims of executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, and classification. A classification claim is a reason to review in a secure setting, not a reason to withhold from Congress.
What guardrails keep the investigation fair and keep people out of trouble?
Handle classified information by the book. Much of this record is classified. Review it only in secure facilities with cleared members and staff. Do not quote classified material in public statements. Ask the executive to declassify specific items, and use the committees' own procedures to release information when the public interest requires it. Publish unclassified summaries.
Protect service members. Focus on decisions, orders, and legal advice, not on the pilots, sailors, and operators who carried out orders. Do not publish names of junior personnel. Never urge anyone to disobey an order. Questions about lawful orders belong with military lawyers, the chain of command, an inspector general, or Congress. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034, protects lawful communications with members of Congress and inspectors general.
Protect whistleblowers. Classified concerns must go only through authorized channels, such as an inspector general, the intelligence committees, or cleared committee staff. Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act process (50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)), certain personnel can bring urgent concerns to the intelligence committees through the Inspector General. See Whistleblowers and Congress: A Guide for Federal Employees.
Respect the Fifth Amendment. Commanders and officials may invoke the privilege. Congress can grant use immunity (18 U.S.C. §§ 6002, 6005). As United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990), shows, that can make later prosecution very hard. Consult the Justice Department before voting.
Keep members and staff inside the rules. The Speech or Debate Clause protects hearings and reports, not press releases. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979). Avoid declaring anyone guilty of a war crime or murder. Say what the evidence shows and let the proper process decide.
Respect victims and their privacy. Get informed consent before families testify. Provide interpreters, and protect families who report threats. Do not publish unverified claims about the dead, whether they say a person was innocent or say a person was a trafficker.
Write general laws, not punishments. Under the Bill of Attainder Clause, United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), reforms must set rules for every President and every operation.
Watch the clock. House subpoenas expire when a Congress ends. Plan accordingly.
How can Congress work with foreign governments, victims' families, and international bodies?
Many of the people killed were foreign nationals. Much of the evidence about who they were is held abroad by governments, families, and local authorities. Congress can gather it lawfully, as long as it gathers information and does not try to conduct foreign policy itself.
Foreign governments.
Ask formally, through the right channels. Committees can write to the embassies of Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, Ecuador, and other affected countries. They can ask for identities, missing-person reports, and any communications with U.S. officials. Copy the State Department.
Use congressional delegations. Members can travel to affected countries to meet officials, coast guards, and families, with State Department support and a clear fact-finding purpose.
Respect the line on foreign policy. Members should gather facts. They should not negotiate on behalf of the United States or make commitments to foreign governments.
Document the security costs. Colombia's president ordered a halt to intelligence sharing in November 2025, and NBC News reported that the United Kingdom paused some sharing over legal concerns. Committees can ask the intelligence community what cooperation was lost and what that cost counter-drug efforts.
Victims' families.
Invite families to give voluntary statements or testimony, in person or remotely, with interpreters and with their lawyers present.
Families in Burnley v. United States (D. Mass., filed January 27, 2026) sued under the Death on the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute. The family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in December 2025. Congress should not interfere with pending cases, but it can review public filings and ask the government what records exist.
Ask the Defense Department whether it has used its existing authority to make ex gratia (condolence) payments, and why or why not.
International bodies and independent trackers.
On October 31, 2025, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said the strikes violate international human rights law and called for investigations. Committees can request any communications between the UN and the State Department.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, part of the Organization of American States, has received evidence on the strikes. The United States is an OAS member, and the State Department has publicly supported the Commission's work.
Independent trackers keep strike-by-strike records that committees can compare with the Pentagon's own accounting.
Foreign nationals abroad generally cannot be compelled by a congressional subpoena. Testimony from abroad will usually be voluntary. That makes early outreach and trust-building with families and foreign officials essential.
What laws should the 120th Congress pass?
These reforms set rules for every future President, of either party. They keep the military fully able to fight lawful wars and defend against real attacks.
# | Reform | What it would do | Vehicle |
1 | No war by designation | State that an FTO designation, or a presidential notice of "armed conflict," does not authorize military force | Amend 8 U.S.C. § 1189; War Powers Resolution |
2 | Funding limit | Bar funds for lethal force against vessels or persons suspected only of drug trafficking, absent specific authorization or an imminent threat | Defense appropriations; NDAA |
3 | Interdiction first | Require Coast Guard or law-enforcement interdiction and arrest unless it is not feasible and there is an imminent threat to life | Title 14; title 10 |
4 | Survivor protection | Require rescue and medical care for survivors and prohibit attacks on shipwrecked persons, with reporting of every survivor | Title 10; War Crimes Act |
5 | Strike-by-strike reporting | Require a report to Congress within 48 hours on each lethal strike: location, basis, number killed, identities if known, and evidence | War Powers Resolution; NDAA |
6 | Publish legal opinions | Require that legal opinions authorizing lethal force be sent to the relevant committees, with an unclassified summary made public | NDAA; title 28 |
7 | War Powers enforcement | Cut off funds automatically when the 60-day clock runs out without authorization; give war powers resolutions fast-track procedures | War Powers Resolution |
8 | Close War Crimes Act gaps | Make clear that 18 U.S.C. § 2441 covers attacks on shipwrecked or surrendering persons in any conflict the executive declares | 18 U.S.C. § 2441 |
9 | Protect military lawyers | Protect judge advocates who give candid legal advice from retaliation, and require written legal review before any new category of lethal targeting | Title 10 |
10 | Records preservation | Require preservation of all strike video, sensor data, and communications, and production to committees on request | Federal Records Act; NDAA |
11 | Victim accountability | Require notice to the victims' home governments and families, and annual reporting on ex gratia payments | NDAA |
12 | Independent review | Require the Inspector General to review the legality, not just the procedures, of any lethal-force campaign that lacks specific authorization | Inspector General Act |
War powers resolutions in the 119th Congress failed by narrow margins, including a 215–215 tie. Statutory limits attached to the NDAA or appropriations bills last longer, and must-pass bills are harder to veto as a practical matter. For model language and veto-proof strategy, see Model Bills for the 120th Congress and Veto-Proof Reform Laws to Protect the Separation of Powers.
Let's talk
If you are a member of the 120th Congress, a committee staffer, a service member or civil servant with lawful information to share, or a family member of someone killed, we welcome the conversation. We can help draft preservation letters, document requests, and model bill language. Contact Biazzo Law or visit the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program.
Companion resources
Frequently asked questions
Has a court ruled the boat strikes illegal? No court has ruled on their legality yet. A wrongful-death suit, Burnley v. United States, is pending in federal court in Massachusetts, and a petition is pending at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Did Congress authorize the strikes? No. Congress has not authorized force against drug cartels. War powers resolutions to stop the strikes failed narrowly in both chambers.
Isn't a designated terrorist organization a lawful military target? A designation under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 triggers sanctions and criminal penalties. It does not, by itself, authorize military force. Whether a group is a party to an armed conflict depends on facts the government has not publicly shown.
What was wrong with the September 2 follow-up strike? That is a key question for Congress. Even in an armed conflict, the law of war forbids attacking shipwrecked people who are out of the fight. The administration says the strike was lawful. The full video and orders would show which account is right.
Can Congress subpoena strike video and legal opinions? Yes, when the request serves a valid legislative purpose, such as reforming war powers or the rules for using force. Classified material is reviewed in secure settings.
Can Congress make foreign witnesses testify? Generally not abroad. Families and foreign officials can testify voluntarily, and committees can request records through embassies with State Department coordination.
Is this a partisan issue? It should not be. The limits on killing without trial protect everyone, under every President. Members of both parties raised concerns after the September 2 reports.
This post is for general information and public education. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. It describes public reporting and filings as of the date shown; many facts remain disputed and unverified, and no court has ruled on the legality of the strikes. Nothing here accuses any individual of a crime. The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program is nonpartisan and does not endorse or oppose any candidate or party. Service members and federal employees should get individual advice before disclosing information and should never disclose classified information outside authorized channels.
Comments