By Jane Lewis | Wednesday, December 10, 2025 | 4 min read

Trump and Pete Hegseth are under intense scrutiny this week, after the secretary of defense—already widely criticized as unprepared for the job—told Senator Chuck Schumer that the Pentagon needed to “study” a video before releasing it. This isn’t just any video: it’s the record of a second missile strike that hit the wreckage of a small boat off Venezuela’s coast, killing two survivors clinging to debris. The decision to withhold it has raised serious questions, especially given that Trump and Pete Hegseth eagerly released footage from previous strikes.

The phrase landed like a hollow thud. Study it? This same secretary had no hesitation releasing footage of the first strike—footage he seemed almost eager to showcase, despite the devastating images of a small craft obliterated and nine people killed instantly. There was no talk of careful review then. No hesitation. No concern about context, legality, or morality.

Something changed when it came to the second strike.

Even former President Donald Trump, who initially claimed ignorance of the incident, has now admitted he’s seen the footage. His characteristic vagueness—“It’s not pretty”—only deepens the suspicion that the public is being shielded from something much worse than what we’ve already been shown.

And we don’t have to rely on imagination. Senator Mark Warner, who has watched the full video, said he believed the survivors were incapacitated when the second missile was launched. Republican Senator Rand Paul, not known for aligning himself with Democratic narratives, bluntly called the act “clearly illegal” and challenged the very premise behind these targeted strikes. His questions were pointed: Were these unarmed men even part of a war? Where was the evidence they posed a threat? Where was the proof they were carrying drugs or heading to the United States?

As of now, none of that evidence has been presented publicly.

What has been shown is a consistent pattern: small, fragile boats—vessels that look more suited for fishing near the shoreline than crossing oceans—being struck with overwhelming force. Boats too small to carry meaningful cargo, too unstable to survive rough waters, and certainly too limited to threaten the United States. Yet these are the crafts being treated as seaborne battlegrounds in a campaign that increasingly resembles political theater more than national security.

If the picture weren’t already murky, the former president’s unrelated pardon of a Honduran ex-president convicted in a sprawling, violent drug-trafficking conspiracy only adds to the contradictions. Trump claimed he knew little about the man or the case—a remarkable admission considering the gravity of the charges and the mountain of evidence presented to an American jury. If this is the administration that once promised “zero tolerance” on drug trafficking, it’s difficult to square that pledge with the realities of its actions.

And now, in an almost surreal twist, members of Congress—including Senator Mark Kelly—have found themselves the targets of threats and rhetoric so extreme that it strains belief. Kelly, who has lived with the trauma of political violence since the attempted assassination of his wife, Gabby Giffords, described hearing the president float talk of execution and treason for those who challenge him. This, in the United States of America.

The thread connecting all of this—the strikes at sea, the withheld video, the threats, the evasive answers—is a growing disregard for transparency and accountability. It’s a culture where spectacle is prized above substance, and where admitting error is treated as weakness rather than responsibility.

Americans — and the rest of the world — have a right to see that video. Citizens deserve to know exactly what their government is doing in their name, and whether those actions square with the law, with our stated values, and with the basic rules that are supposed to guide the use of military force. And let’s be honest: FIFA’s decision to hand out a “Peace Prize” without even acknowledging what happened off Venezuela’s coast is a disgrace. Rewarding one of the most volatile presidents of our lifetime isn’t just tone-deaf — it’s an insult to anyone who still believes accountability means something.

If the video exonerates those involved, release it. If it raises legal or moral concerns, those concerns must be addressed openly—not buried behind vague promises to “study” it.

Because when a government begins hiding the truth from its people, even under the guise of caution, it’s not just transparency that suffers—it’s democracy itself.

More From FeDlan News:

Trump says it’s ‘time to pursue’ Obama as his DOJ weighs charges tied to Russia ‘hoax’

A Presidency in Decline: Grave Questions About Trump’s Age, Health and Fitness

Pete Hegseth’s “Kill Them All” Order Sparks Accusations of Advocating War Crimes

A Republican Civil War: Why the GOP Is Quietly Bracing to Abandon Mike Johnson and Trump

Epstein Emails Claim Trump Was “Borderline Insane” and Showing Signs of “Early Dementia”

Donate