Pete Hegseth says he personally authorized the Trump administration’s first strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel off Venezuela on Sept. 2, watched the operation live in the Pentagon, and defended both the legal and tactical work behind it. He framed the effort as part of a larger campaign against cartel-linked narco-terrorist networks across the Caribbean and pushed back hard on reporting that mischaracterized orders and intent. He also used the forum to press for a stronger defense posture, argue that morale is rising in the armed forces, and stress the need for rapid rebuilding of military capabilities.
In a keynote address, Hegseth cast President Trump as the modern heir to Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” approach and criticized past bipartisan leadership for getting stuck in protracted conflicts. That set the tone for a candid Q&A that followed, where he laid out operational details and defended the decision-making process behind the strike. The tone was plain and unapologetic: this was a deliberate, legal military action aimed at protecting the homeland.
Hegseth told his interviewer that the Sept. 2 strike was the first in a campaign of more than 20 actions targeting networks tied to narco-terrorism across the region. He said it took “a couple of weeks, almost a month” to build the necessary intelligence and that assets had been reoriented after years focused elsewhere. He kept strike authority at his level only for the initial operation because of its strategic implications and the need for tight oversight.
He pushed back directly on a particularly explosive report and excoriated its sourcing in blunt terms. “Does anybody here from the Washington Post? I don’t know where you get your sources, but they suck,” Hegseth said when asked if he had ever issued such an order. “Of course not… you don’t walk in and say, ‘Kill them.’ It’s just patently ridiculous.”
The secretary described an exhaustive pre-strike briefing that involved military and civilian personnel, lawyers, intel analysts, and red-teaming to make sure every legal and tactical box was checked. “My job was to say execute or don’t execute,” he said, stressing the weight of that call. He confirmed plainly, “I approved the strike.”
Hegseth said he watched the mission feed “for probably five minutes or so” before letting tactical commanders manage the engagement and move on to other duties. When commanders later reported remaining threats, he supported a follow-up attack to remove lingering risks. “I fully support that strike,” he said. “I would have made the same call myself.”
He noted that re-attacks are common in combat situations and fell within established authorities under the chain of command, now vested with Admiral Bradley for subsequent missions. Hegseth emphasized that he no longer retains approval authority for follow-on strikes, framing his role as ensuring legal and strategic standards were met at the outset. That transition was presented as responsible handoff rather than abdication.
On the matter of survivors and post-strike protocol, Hegseth pointed to a later incident involving a semi-submersible drug vessel where initial strikes did not finish the job. “In that particular case, the first strike didn’t take it out, and a couple of guys jumped off and swam,” he said, explaining that US forces retrieved survivors after the second strike. “We gave them back to their host countries,” he added, describing adherence to protocols while adapting to unique circumstances.
Hegseth argued the operations have already had deterrent effects and pushed the cartels to operate deeper in the Caribbean, which he said will make Americans safer. He was clear that public release of operational footage is being weighed against ongoing operations and intelligence protection. “We’re reviewing it right now,” he said, citing concerns over “sources, methods,” and the need to preserve ongoing work.
Budget and readiness were recurring themes for Hegseth, who said defense spending keeps him up at night and noted recent Oval Office discussions about FY26 and FY27. “I think that number is going up,” he said on whether defense spending as a share of GDP will rise, though he deferred to the president on final decisions. “We need a revived defense industrial base,” he insisted. “We need those capabilities. We need them yesterday.”
He addressed other controversies with a steady tone, including a closed inspector general review about communications and past operations, saying he bears no regrets about his choices. “I don’t live with any regrets,” he said, adding that morale has surged under current leadership. “The revival of the spirit inside our military… the desire to join and re-enlist is at historic levels,” he said, tying personnel confidence directly to policy.
When asked about technology, Hegseth argued for a balanced approach that keeps troops central while embracing advanced tools. “It has to be both,” he said about AI-enabled sensing and autonomous systems while guarding human judgment on the battlefield. He closed on a lighter note with a traditional forum question about the Army–Navy game: “Well, I’m with Navy,” he said, and he praised the Marine Corps for standing steady through recent political “nonsense.”
