Key GOP senator says he has no objection to releasing video of strike that killed two survivors

A video of a controversial U.S. military strike that killed survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean shows “nothing remarkable,” according to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, who said Sunday he would support its public release if declassified by the Pentagon.

The Republican senator from Arkansas partially aligned himself with both President Donald Trump and top Democrats who favor releasing footage of the September 2 attack, which killed all 11 people aboard the vessel. The incident was the first in what has become a series of American military operations targeting suspected drug smugglers near Venezuelan waters.

“It’s not gruesome. I didn’t find it distressing or disturbing,” Cotton said, comparing the footage to other military strikes in the Middle East. “There’s nothing remarkable on that video, in my opinion.”

However, a stark partisan divide has emerged over the legality of the military’s actions, particularly regarding a second strike that killed two survivors of the initial attack. The controversy centers on whether these survivors posed a continued threat or were effectively helpless when targeted.

The debate intensified after The Washington Post reported that Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley ordered a follow-on attack that killed the survivors, allegedly to comply with demands from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. During classified briefings to lawmakers Thursday, Bradley denied receiving any “kill them all” directive from Hegseth.

Democratic lawmakers who viewed the footage strongly contested Cotton’s characterization. Connecticut Representative Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, described the video as “profoundly shaking.”

“I have no doubt that these guys were involved in the running of drugs… But in that instance, these guys were about to die,” Himes said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” He emphasized the importance of releasing the video, noting that interpretations of the footage “broke down precisely on party lines.”

Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, added: “It did not appear that these two survivors were in any position to continue the fight.”

The military operations, which began under Trump’s administration, have resulted in at least 87 deaths across 22 known strikes targeting vessels near Venezuela. The campaign has sparked debate among legal experts about whether the United States is in an official armed conflict with Venezuela and whether using military forces for what amounts to law enforcement activities violates international law.

Pentagon protocols explicitly state that firing upon shipwrecked individuals is illegal, regardless of engagement terms. However, Cotton maintained that the survivors “were not in a shipwrecked state” or “floating helplessly in the water” but instead were “sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat.” Because they were “not incapacitated,” he argued that “that boat, its cargo… remained valid targets.”

Smith directly contradicted this assessment, stating, “The boat was clearly incapacitated. A tiny portion of it remained capsized, the bow of the boat. They had no communications device. Certainly, they were unarmed.”

During a press conference Wednesday, Trump told reporters he had “no problem” with releasing whatever footage exists. Defense Secretary Hegseth, speaking at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Saturday, said officials were reviewing the video but would need to be “very responsible” about any potential release.

The controversy occurs amid ongoing congressional inquiries into the anti-drug trafficking operations. Bradley reportedly told lawmakers in a closed session that he ordered the second attack because he believed cocaine bales remained in the boat’s hull, further complicating questions about the mission’s objectives and execution.

As the debate continues, lawmakers and legal experts alike are grappling with fundamental questions about military authority, international law, and the rules of engagement in America’s drug interdiction efforts.