It never fails. The media invests heavily in promoting a story that is sure to “get” President Trump or someone in the administration. And then, the narrative just goes boom.

And sometimes, it’s the media who blows up the narrative that was pushed by their competitors. Recently, the Washington Post published a story about a strike by the military on yet another drug boat coming out of Venezuela on September 2nd, in which they allege, via “anonymous sources,” that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered that the survivors of the attack be killed with a second strike.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

Hegseth’s order, which has not been previously reported, adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers. Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution.

Now, the legality of these strikes on the drug boats is a hotly debated topic, even on the right. Notably, Andy McCarthy of National Review (who is a lawyer) has insisted that the strikes are extrajudicial, and that this particular second hit, if true, would be a war crime.

Well, the problem was, the Washington Post was relying on anonymous sources, so the “if true” loomed large. Despite not having all the information – only the media story at hand – Democrats began demanding Hegseth’s impeachment. And with the implied and explicit threat that anyone carrying out illegal orders could be prosecuted, the media was beginning to salivate, especially after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that there was a second hit on the target.

NEW: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirms that the U.S. military did indeed conduct a second strike on the suspected drug vessel in a September 2 attack to make sure survivors from the initial strike got killed. pic.twitter.com/idiWpPCzDx

— Civics Research & Reporting (@CivicsReport) December 1, 2025

But even as Leavitt confirmed the second strike, no less than the New York Times was using their own anonymous sources to question whether Hegseth had actually given a “kill everybody” order, and that Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley had been the one to make the final call.

According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.

But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.

Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him.

Obviously, if the admiral made the decision, that puts a dagger in the back of the whole impeachment plotting, doesn’t it? Then during a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, President Trump stood by Secretary Hegseth, and Secretary Hegseth stood by Admiral Bradley.

In response to a question about the Sept. 2 strike of a Venezuelan boat allegedly transporting drugs, Mr. Trump and Hegseth provided new details about the attack.

The president said he has not gotten all of the information about the strikes, and relies on Hegseth.

“To me it was an attack. It wasn’t one strike, two strikes, three strikes,” Mr. Trump said. “I didn’t know about the second strike.”

The president said Hegseth was “satisfied” and “didn’t know about a second attack having to do with two people.”

“I want those boats taken out and, if we have to, we’ll attack on land also, just like we attack on sea,” Mr. Trump said.

Hegseth, meanwhile, said he watched a live feed of the first strike on Sept. 2 but left before the second attack.

“I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we’ve got a lot of things to do. So I didn’t stick around for the hour, two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs,” he said. “So I moved on to my next meeting.”

He said he learned later that Bradley, the admiral in charge of the operation, made the decision to “ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.”

The defense secretary said Bradley “made the correct decision” and had “complete authority” to order a follow-on strike.

However, both sides of the aisle would like some answers about what exactly did happen that day, so Admiral Bradley will be providing a classified briefing to certain members and committees in Congress today.

The Navy admiral who reportedly issued orders for the U.S. military to fire upon survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat is expected Thursday on Capitol Hill to provide a classified briefing to top congressional lawmakers overseeing national security.

The information from Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who is now the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, comes at a potentially crucial moment in the unfolding congressional investigation into how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth handled the military operation in international waters near Venezuela. There are mounting questions over whether the strike may have violated the law.

Lawmakers are seeking a full accounting of the strikes after The Washington Post reported that Bradley on Sept. 2 ordered an attack on two survivors to comply with Hegseth’s directive to “kill everybody.” Legal experts say the incident amounts to a crime if the survivors were targeted, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are demanding accountability.

Bradley will speak to a handful of top congressional leaders, including the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate committees on Armed Services, and separately to the GOP chairman and Democratic vice chairman on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But before that briefing could even take place, ABC News committed an act of journalism on Wednesday evening that just undermined the entire media narrative.

ABC’s Martha Raddatz on Wednesday’s ‘World News Tonight’ about drug boat-gate: “And tonight, new information: According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back on to the boat after the initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in… pic.twitter.com/R5eHFzzDql

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 4, 2025

An initial strike on the boat left two survivors who were later seen climbing back onto the boat, the source said.

They were believed to be potentially in communication with other boats in the vicinity and were salvaging some of the drugs that had been the boat’s cargo, the source said.

Because of these actions, the two survivors were determined to be “still in the fight” and considered to be valid targets.

The source told ABC News that, as is typical with targeted strikes, a military lawyer was with Bradley providing legal advice throughout the Sept. 2 incident to ensure any actions were legally authorized.

Now, if THESE anonymous sources can be believed, then the two “survivors” in question were not just clinging to bits of the boat, waiting for rescue. They were actively trying to save the cargo and calling for a new ride. AND, Admiral Bradley had legal counsel on hand, in the moment. That sound you hear is the air going out of the Democrats and their narrative.

Of course, Congress should be allowed to see the drone video, and President Trump has said it should be released – though I’m not entirely sure that the American public needs to see it. Congress has oversight, so let them have it first, and then make that determination. Regardless, with reports that a JAG was in the room to give legal counsel, and the new allegation that the two people were actively trying to save their cargo, the story now takes on a whole new light from what the Washington Post first accused Hegseth of doing. We all know it was an attempt to undermine the secretary and force him out, and in doing so, harm the administration. We can still have debates on whether these strikes on drug traffickers in international waters is legal or not, but this nitpicking oversight from Democrats is insanely hypocritical.

The people currently lecturing you about the “rules of war” executed ten innocent afghans with a reaper drone after Abbey Gate and called it a “righteous strike.”

Then when the facts came out, not a single person was punished. Nobody even got reprimanded.

This is all fake.

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) November 30, 2025

And that isn’t even discussing Barack Obama’s drone usage against American citizens. So yes, investigate what happened on September 2nd, Democrats, and talk to the admiral. But this narrative, like the drug boat itself, has just been blown up.

Featured image: original Victory Girls art by Darleen Click