I hadn’t planned on sending another update tonight—but the news isn’t slowing down, and what unfolded today is too serious to wait until morning. Major developments are breaking around Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempt to shift blame for a deadly U.S. military operation in Latin America onto Admiral Bradley, and the implications are profound.
Before we get into the full story, I need to ask you to consider subscribing. Wherever I am, whatever hour news breaks, I will keep working to bring you accurate, uncompromised reporting. I’m committed to cutting through the noise, shining light where others won’t, and holding the powerful accountable—especially in moments like this, when the stakes are high and many would rather these stories never see daylight.
Subscribe
Your support makes this work possible. With your help, we’ll keep pushing for truth, and we will not back down.
In the aftermath of a U.S. strike on suspected drug smugglers in Latin America—an operation that ended with the killing of two survivors—the Washington Post has now confirmed that senior officials in Congress and the Pentagon say they’re growing increasingly alarmed. They believe the Trump administration is preparing to pin the responsibility for the deadly engagement on the senior military commander who authorized it, despite evidence that the decision was shaped by a broader chain of command that reaches far beyond one officer.
This is not happening quietly. According to the Post’s reporting, lawmakers are already initiating inquiries to determine whether the incident constitutes a war crime. The deliberate killing of survivors after the initial strike raises serious legal and ethical red flags, prompting bipartisan concern and heightened scrutiny of the rules of engagement and command decisions surrounding the mission. As I spoke with Ro Khanna earlier, we have confirmation that there will be a major inquiry launched by the House Armed Services Committee.
The alarm is amplified by Hegseth’s previous rhetoric. He has repeatedly condemned what he calls “politically correct rules of engagement,” emphasizing his desire to “untie the hands” of U.S. warfighters. Those statements now loom large as investigators examine whether the September 2 operation was influenced by a push to relax restraints that typically govern U.S. military conduct.
What has intensified the crisis is the administration’s coordinated effort to recast the strike as strictly an operational decision—one made by Admiral Bradley, not by civilian leadership.
Defense Secretary Hegseth, backed by the White House, is attempting to distance himself from the fallout. The administration’s public messaging emphasizes that the decision was made on the ground, framing it as a field-level call rather than a failure of oversight or policy.
But inside the Pentagon, that messaging touched off a firestorm.
Service members are stunned—and angered—by remarks delivered at today’s White House briefing, where spokesperson Karoline Leavitt appeared to leave open the possibility that Bradley alone directed the fatal second strike.
Multiple Pentagon officials told The Washington Post that her statement “threw service members under the bus,” creating what they described as unacceptable ambiguity about who gave what orders.
Late Monday night, Hegseth took to social media to proclaim his support for Admiral Bradley, saying he stands by the admiral’s “combat decisions” on the mission and throughout his career. But to many inside the Pentagon, the statement only reinforced their suspicion that Hegseth is trying to insulate himself from legal and political consequences while leaving Bradley exposed.
President Trump, meanwhile, told reporters over the weekend that he spoke with Hegseth and was assured the secretary “did not give an order to kill everyone aboard the boat.” Trump added, “And I believe him, 100 percent.”
That comment has only raised more questions. If Hegseth did not give such an order, who shaped the rules of engagement? Who oversaw the mission parameters? And who is ultimately responsible for the actions carried out under U.S. authority?
On Capitol Hill, the scrutiny is intensifying. Key offices—Republican and Democratic alike—are parsing Leavitt’s remarks and Hegseth’s public posture for clues about the administration’s strategy. Some lawmakers are signaling that they will not allow military officers to be scapegoated for decisions that may trace back to civilian leadership.
With the story gaining national attention and more than a thousand public comments in just hours, the pressure is mounting. Lawmakers are demanding transparency, accountability, and answers about whether U.S. forces were ordered—directly or indirectly—to violate international law.
This fight is only beginning.