In a striking example of how quickly a headline-grabbing narrative can unravel under the weight of facts, the story surrounding the alleged “second strike” ordered by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is rapidly losing steam. What began as an explosive accusation—painted in stark, emotional strokes by The Washington Post—is now being recontextualized, and quite thoroughly, by a broader body of emerging evidence, including new reporting from The New York Times.
To recap: The Post, citing unnamed “sources,” claimed that Hegseth had personally ordered a second missile strike to kill survivors left clinging to the wreckage of a narcotrafficking boat targeted on September 2 in the Trump administration’s opening salvo against drug cartels in the Western Hemisphere. The implication was clear and damning: that the strike was not a continuation of a lawful military action, but an extrajudicial execution.
🚨@PressSec confirms that the Sec. War did NOT give the order to strike the narco boat a second time, Admiral Bradley did—and he had every right to.
"POTUS and Sec. Hegseth has made it clear that presidentially designated narco terrorist groups are subject to LETHAL targeting in… pic.twitter.com/YcImqBvAjI
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 1, 2025
That narrative dominated headlines and social media for a 48-hour window. But now we’re seeing why the “48-hour rule” is so crucial in assessing these politically charged bombshells.
Hegseth, in no uncertain terms, called the story “fabricated.” The White House Press Secretary backed him, affirming that he gave no such second-strike order. And now, The New York Times—hardly an outlet known for going easy on Trump officials—has undercut The Post’s version with corroboration from five separate U.S. officials, all of whom directly contradict the claim that Hegseth ordered a follow-up strike targeting survivors.
Wait... https://t.co/FVy4oNbWEX pic.twitter.com/KeRmvFg0jx
— Byron York (@ByronYork) December 2, 2025
What these officials confirm is significant: Hegseth authorized the initial strike with the goal of eliminating both the suspected traffickers and the drug-laden vessel. However, he gave no directives on how to proceed after that first missile if remnants or survivors remained. Importantly, his decision was made before any surveillance footage revealed that two individuals may have survived the initial impact.
Instead, responsibility for the follow-up actions lay with Admiral Bradley, who, in real-time and on-scene, made the judgment to launch additional strikes. His rationale, according to officials, was operational: the wreckage and its cargo still posed a threat. A partially destroyed drug boat floating in contested waters isn't a neutral object—it’s a potential magnet for other cartel vessels, a retrievable asset, and a possible flashpoint.
Let’s make one thing crystal clear:
Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since.
America is fortunate to have such men protecting…
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) December 1, 2025
This reframes the incident from a “kill order” narrative into what it actually appears to have been: a military commander exercising battlefield discretion in accordance with the mission's strategic objectives.
Even more telling is that two officials questioned whether the so-called "survivors" were even the targets of the follow-up strike. Their assessment: the strikes were aimed at the cargo and vessel, not individuals. In military operations, especially those involving narcoterrorist networks, material objectives can be just as strategically vital as human targets.