Pentagon Defies Congress: U.S. Caribbean Strike Video Locked Down

Paul Riverbank, 12/17/2025Secrecy shrouds U.S. strikes near Venezuela, igniting bipartisan demands for transparency after civilian deaths. With unedited footage withheld, Capitol Hill faces mounting questions about military aims, legal justification, and the administration’s intentions in the region.

Pressed by a thicket of reporters in the cramped hallway, Hegseth was firm enough—if not exactly forthright—about the administration’s stance on transparency. “We’re not about to release a top secret, unedited video,” he remarked, stopping short of even considering wider disclosure. Yes, some in the House and Senate Armed Services Committees would be allowed a look at the full footage—but no, the general public would presumably remain in the dark. Washington, at times, is a city built on questions, and these answers seemed designed to provide little comfort or closure.

This particular strike is more than a single incident lost in the shuffle of U.S. foreign policy. It’s part of a broad campaign that has seen nearly a hundred deaths from 25 separate boat strikes, stretching across swathes of internationally-claimed waters near Venezuela. The stated mission, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is dismantling the infrastructure of groups trafficking narcotics—networks, he claims, are responsible for poisoning and killing Americans. Yet, beneath these claims, the strategy’s underlying motives remain the subject of heated conjecture.

The conversation changed character abruptly after the September 2 strike—one that cost two men their lives as they clung desperately to shattered boat remains, only to be struck again by a second missile. The incident, and the freshly intensified campaign that followed, has led to new fatalities and shaken nerves on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers—many of whom say the Pentagon’s updates have been painfully thin—are not hiding their frustration. Some have discovered details the same way the rest of us do: scrolling through Pentagon social media accounts filled with footage of burning boats, but rarely context.

Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s top Democrat, was candid in his doubts after Tuesday’s session: “If they can’t be transparent now, why trust them on things even larger?” Hegseth’s visit, Schumer said, felt unsubstantial—and not just because he left committed only to minimal disclosure.

Critics, interestingly, are not confined to one political corner. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican voice long wary of military overreach, called for the American public to see what truly transpired. “Shooting unarmed people, clinging to wreckage? That’s not who we are,” Paul insisted, pushing again for the uncensored video.

Some, of course, disagree. Sen. Lindsey Graham cuts a different figure—a hawk of the old school. “If you’re not aiming to take Venezuelan leadership out, you’re making a mistake,” he said, expressing faith in the legality and necessity of America’s approach.

Tensions are tight. The pressure in Washington isn’t about to ease. U.S. ships and fighter jets operate ever closer to Caracas, and meanwhile, Maduro denounces these moves as thinly veiled attempts at regime change. His complaints to the United Nations have, so far, landed with a thud. And nobody really seems to know the fate of the crew from a recently-seized oil tanker.

One detail that unsettles many lawmakers: President Trump and his senior team have yet to formally seek Congressional backing for either the strikes or any broad escalation. Old pitfalls of unapproved military actions loom large—the specter of unintended casualties or, as some critics frame it, civilian deaths without cogent military justification. John Yoo, a veteran of war policy debates, warns of a slippery slope: “Without clear aims, shooting civilians has no justification.”

Congress is now setting teeth into the issue the only way it can, adding a stipulation to the defense budget to freeze part of Hegseth’s travel funds if his office withholds strike videos from the oversight committees. It’s a rare move and speaks volumes about the level of trust, or lack thereof, between the Defense Department and the legislative branch.

Elizabeth Warren, ever sharp, caught another irony: the administration has already released certain strike videos—just not those that might suggest misconduct. “They just don’t want to share anything that hints at war crimes,” she told reporters.

Attention next swings back to Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who ordered the Caribbean strike. He’s slated for another round of closed briefings—an ordeal that promises more scrutiny, but perhaps little new sunlight. Some Republicans, fresh from previous classified sessions, have doubled down on their approval. House Speaker Mike Johnson recently called the underlying intelligence “exquisite”—a curiously glowing assessment in the circumstances.

Yet, for all the firm or even fiery opinions, the crucial footage is still locked away, and as the military press continues offshore, those on the Hill—and beyond—are left to wonder whether the full truth will ever reach daylight in this strange, simmering chapter of U.S. foreign affairs.

There’s always a peculiar hush when a senior official leaves a classified briefing on Capitol Hill, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday walked into a veritable wall of questions and news microphones. The shadow hanging over his every step: a U.S. military strike in Caribbean waters, a situation growing foggier by the day. While the Pentagon touts it as a blow against dangerous trafficking networks, there’s a sense that the real story remains just out of view—literally and figuratively, as unedited video evidence stays under wraps.Pressed by a thicket of reporters in the cramped hallway, Hegseth was firm enough—if not exactly forthright—about the administration’s stance on transparency. “We’re not about to release a top secret, unedited video,” he remarked, stopping short of even considering wider disclosure. Yes, some in the House and Senate Armed Services Committees would be allowed a look at the full footage—but no, the general public would presumably remain in the dark. Washington, at times, is a city built on questions, and these answers seemed designed to provide little comfort or closure.This particular strike is more than a single incident lost in the shuffle of U.S. foreign policy. It’s part of a broad campaign that has seen nearly a hundred deaths from 25 separate boat strikes, stretching across swathes of internationally-claimed waters near Venezuela. The stated mission, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is dismantling the infrastructure of groups trafficking narcotics—networks, he claims, are responsible for poisoning and killing Americans. Yet, beneath these claims, the strategy’s underlying motives remain the subject of heated conjecture.The conversation changed character abruptly after the September 2 strike—one that cost two men their lives as they clung desperately to shattered boat remains, only to be struck again by a second missile. The incident, and the freshly intensified campaign that followed, has led to new fatalities and shaken nerves on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers—many of whom say the Pentagon’s updates have been painfully thin—are not hiding their frustration. Some have discovered details the same way the rest of us do: scrolling through Pentagon social media accounts filled with footage of burning boats, but rarely context.Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s top Democrat, was candid in his doubts after Tuesday’s session: “If they can’t be transparent now, why trust them on things even larger?” Hegseth’s visit, Schumer said, felt unsubstantial—and not just because he left committed only to minimal disclosure.Critics, interestingly, are not confined to one political corner. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican voice long wary of military overreach, called for the American public to see what truly transpired. “Shooting unarmed people, clinging to wreckage? That’s not who we are,” Paul insisted, pushing again for the uncensored video.Some, of course, disagree. Sen. Lindsey Graham cuts a different figure—a hawk of the old school. “If you’re not aiming to take Venezuelan leadership out, you’re making a mistake,” he said, expressing faith in the legality and necessity of America’s approach.Tensions are tight. The pressure in Washington isn’t about to ease. U.S. ships and fighter jets operate ever closer to Caracas, and meanwhile, Maduro denounces these moves as thinly veiled attempts at regime change. His complaints to the United Nations have, so far, landed with a thud. And nobody really seems to know the fate of the crew from a recently-seized oil tanker.One detail that unsettles many lawmakers: President Trump and his senior team have yet to formally seek Congressional backing for either the strikes or any broad escalation. Old pitfalls of unapproved military actions loom large—the specter of unintended casualties or, as some critics frame it, civilian deaths without cogent military justification. John Yoo, a veteran of war policy debates, warns of a slippery slope: “Without clear aims, shooting civilians has no justification.”Congress is now setting teeth into the issue the only way it can, adding a stipulation to the defense budget to freeze part of Hegseth’s travel funds if his office withholds strike videos from the oversight committees. It’s a rare move and speaks volumes about the level of trust, or lack thereof, between the Defense Department and the legislative branch.Elizabeth Warren, ever sharp, caught another irony: the administration has already released certain strike videos—just not those that might suggest misconduct. “They just don’t want to share anything that hints at war crimes,” she told reporters.Attention next swings back to Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who ordered the Caribbean strike. He’s slated for another round of closed briefings—an ordeal that promises more scrutiny, but perhaps little new sunlight. Some Republicans, fresh from previous classified sessions, have doubled down on their approval. House Speaker Mike Johnson recently called the underlying intelligence “exquisite”—a curiously glowing assessment in the circumstances.Yet, for all the firm or even fiery opinions, the crucial footage is still locked away, and as the military press continues offshore, those on the Hill—and beyond—are left to wonder whether the full truth will ever reach daylight in this strange, simmering chapter of U.S. foreign affairs.