A recent military strike that reportedly killed shipwrecked survivors at sea is drawing sharp criticism from Congress, with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) demanding answers and calling the Pentagon's actions both illegal and morally wrong.

Show Us The Tape

Schiff isn't mincing words. On Sunday, he posted on X that the killing represents "a textbook violation of the laws of war" and challenged Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directly: "If Hegseth is so proud of the killing of these survivors, the Pentagon should release the full video, just like they have with other boat strikes."

The transparency argument is pretty straightforward. If this was a legitimate military operation, why not show it?

Unlawful, Unconstitutional, And Morally Wrong

When an NBC News reporter asked whether these boat strikes are even legal, Schiff didn't hesitate. "No, I don't. They're unlawful, they're unconstitutional, and killing two people who are shipwrecked at sea is also morally repugnant."

He emphasized that the public deserves full transparency to judge what actually happened out there.

Schiff also pushed back against comments from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who apparently dismissed questions about the survivors' condition. "Whether they were signaling their distress and asking for rescue or what they were doing. It does matter," Schiff said. "For us to be engaged in this kind of unauthorized campaign of extrajudicial killing couldn't be, I think, a more clear violation of the law."

The Pentagon's Defense

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) joined the call for transparency, also urging the Pentagon to release the video.

Meanwhile, Hegseth has amplified Cotton's defense of the strikes as necessary operations to destroy cartel drug boats and their cargo. He strongly defended the Trump administration's counter-drug operations and backed the follow-up strike that killed survivors, saying he would have made the same decision himself.

In a somewhat contradictory turn, Hegseth later said he didn't actually watch the second strike live and chalked up the aftermath to "fog of war." That explanation isn't satisfying lawmakers from both parties who are now scrutinizing the incident for potential war crimes.

The core question remains: Were these survivors posing a threat, or were they simply people in distress at sea who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?