Which maritime agency reported strikes on the first drug boat and what did their report say?

1. Who reported the first strike — the Pentagon and U.S. military spokesmen

U.S. officials in the Department of Defense and military commands publicly announced and later provided details about the initial September strike; media accounts say the White House and Pentagon confirmed a U.S. military airstrike destroyed a vessel in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 and attributed it to U.S. forces, with the Pentagon named repeatedly in subsequent briefings and social‑media posts by U.S. Southern Command ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

2. What their report said — destruction of an alleged drug‑smuggling vessel and casualties

The Pentagon’s public narrative said the first strike destroyed a small boat suspected of smuggling narcotics and that 11 people aboard were killed; the White House and Pentagon framed the action as against traffickers and part of a wider counternarcotics campaign ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

3. The disputed detail they included — follow‑on strikes and survivors

Several outlets report the Pentagon knew survivors remained after the initial attack and that follow‑on strikes — described in reporting as “second taps” — were carried out; AP and Reuters reporting say Pentagon sources acknowledged survivors and that later strikes reportedly killed them, a point the Pentagon and some administration officials have defended while critics call it a possible unlawful killing ^{[3] [2] [6]}.

4. How the administration justified the strike in its statements

Administration officials have argued the strikes are lawful under their characterization of a conflict with drug traffickers and by designating certain groups as narco‑terrorists; the White House and spokesmen said the president designated the traffickers in ways that, in their view, permit use of force — a legal rationale many outside experts dispute, and which Congress has not authorized ^{[7] [8] [2]}.

5. Competing interpretations in the reporting

Mainstream U.S. political defenders — including some Republican lawmakers after classified briefings — called the strike “lawful” and “righteous,” pointing to video and military accounts that, they say, show suspects continuing hostile activity ^{[9] [10]}. Human‑rights groups, many legal scholars and several news investigations counter that the strikes push or break international law because traffickers do not fit classical armed‑group definitions and because follow‑on strikes on survivors may amount to murder or war crimes ^{[2] [5] [11]}.

6. Evidence cited by the Pentagon and limits of public reporting

Reporting notes the Pentagon showed classified video to some lawmakers and released select statements via U.S. Southern Command’s social posts; the administration has not published all underlying evidence publicly, and multiple outlets state that the administration “has not put forward specific evidence” easily available to the public to prove the vessels were actively smuggling drugs at the moment of attack ^{[9] [8] [4]}.

7. Legal and political consequences the reports triggered

The Pentagon’s account prompted bipartisan congressional inquiries and public outrage from rights groups; members of Congress have signaled investigations into whether the U.S. broke domestic or international law, citing Pentagon admissions about follow‑on strikes and survivor casualties ^{[2] [6] [3]}.

8. What the sources do not say or do not make public

Available sources do not mention a full public release of the complete unedited operational video or all forensic evidence that would independently substantiate the Pentagon’s specific claims about drugs on board, attempts to continue hostile actions, or clear chain‑of‑command orders authorizing follow‑on strikes ^{[9] [3]}.

Limitations: this summary relies solely on the provided reporting. The Pentagon and White House statements are reported in these sources; other primary documents or classified materials are not included in the set of sources given here ^{[3] [9]}.