3.3.2 – Informal sources of presidential power and their use – the Cabinet
3.2.2.3 – Congress – Oversight
The controversy surrounding Pete Hegseth centres on a September 2025 operation in the Caribbean in which a boat allegedly linked to Venezuelan narcotraffickers was struck by a US drone. As Secretary of Defense, Hegseth operates under the President’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, and he therefore holds significant operational discretion. The administration justified the initial strike on the grounds of counter-narcotics activity and national security, although no clear public evidence has been provided to confirm that the vessel posed an imminent threat.
The most serious claims relate to what has been described as a “double tap” attack. Reports suggest that after the initial strike, two survivors were later killed in a second attack. Some accounts indicate that Hegseth had given an informal instruction implying that no survivors should remain, which, if substantiated, could constitute unlawful killing under domestic and international law. Hegseth denies issuing such an order and has instead pointed to Admiral Frank Bradley, who oversaw the mission, as the officer responsible for any follow-on action. This has led to suggestions that Bradley is being positioned as a scapegoat, taking responsibility for an operation planned at the highest level of the civilian chain of command.
Congress has moved quickly to assert its oversight role. Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have begun demanding full operational logs, unedited drone footage and the legal advice used to justify the strikes. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern that the administration’s account is inconsistent and that the attempt to shift blame onto a serving admiral raises serious questions about civilian control, accountability and the integrity of the chain of command. Several members have already raised the possibility that, if the allegations are confirmed, the actions could constitute a criminal offence rather than a mere procedural lapse.
For Congress the issue now extends beyond the strike itself. The case forces a wider examination of how far the executive branch can interpret counter-narcotics and self-defence powers and whether meaningful constraints exist in practice. The hearings expected in the coming weeks will test whether congressional oversight is sufficiently robust to determine who authorised the second strike and whether the Defence Secretary exceeded the boundaries of his office.