Was Columbian fishing boat not moving when us military strike on Sept 15 2025 evidence of engine failure and reason for distress call
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Video and reporting show the U.S. military struck small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific in September–December 2025 after labeling some targets as drug-smuggling vessels; those strikes have expanded into at least 22 attacks that the Pentagon says killed 87 people [1] [2] [3]. Available reporting does not confirm whether a Colombian fishing boat struck on Sept. 15 was immobile due to engine failure or whether that was the reason for a distress call; sources report families say victims were fishermen and that at least one Colombian family has filed a legal claim about a Sept. 15 death [3] [4] [5].
1. What the official record and major outlets say about the strikes
U.S. officials and the White House have defended a campaign of strikes against vessels they say carried drugs, arguing operations were lawful and in some cases authorized by senior leaders such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or Admiral Frank Bradley [2] [6]. Reporting shows the campaign began in early September and by early December had grown to at least 22 strikes killing dozens; the administration has described the targets as “narco-terrorists” or drug traffickers while some legal analysts and lawmakers question the legality and proportionality of follow-on strikes on survivors [1] [2] [7].
2. Claims about the Sept. 15 Colombian fishing boat and what sources actually report
A family has filed a petition with the Inter‑American Commission on Human Rights alleging their relative, Alejandro Andrés Carranza Medina, a Colombian fisherman, was killed in a Sept. 15 strike and that he had been fishing, not trafficking [3]. BBC and other reporting explain local families and communities have said some killed were civilian fishers, and Colombian President Gustavo Petro publicly stated a Colombian fisherman was killed in a mid‑September strike [4] [5]. None of the provided reports explicitly document an engine failure on the Sept. 15 boat or tie a distress call to proven mechanical trouble [3] [4].
3. Evidence gaps: distress call, engine failure and movement status
Available sources describe disputes about who was on board, whether crews were traffickers or fishermen, and that families in coastal towns contest U.S. characterizations of victims [4] [8]. But the reporting in the supplied documents does not present forensic or operational evidence showing the boat was stationary because of engine failure, nor do they quote U.S. military logs confirming a distress call citing mechanical failure on Sept. 15 [3] [1]. Therefore the specific technical claim — that the boat “was not moving” due to engine failure and that that explains a distress call — is not supported by the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).
4. Competing narratives and their incentives
U.S. officials frame strikes as targeting dangerous drug-trafficking networks and assert legal grounds and battlefield necessity, including claims of self‑defense and destruction of contraband [2] [9]. Families, regional leaders and some press outlets portray many victims as poor fishermen pressed into risky work, and they highlight the human toll and possible civilian casualties to challenge the administration’s narrative [4] [8]. Each side has incentives: the U.S. government to justify an active military campaign and protect political messaging; families and local politicians to seek accountability and potentially contest U.S. legal arguments [9] [4].
5. What would be needed to substantiate the engine‑failure theory
To validate that a Sept. 15 vessel was immobilized by engine failure and that a distress call led to the strike, reporting or documents would need direct evidence such as: U.S. or Colombian maritime radio logs showing a distress transmission citing engine trouble; shipboard radar/automatic identification system (AIS) tracks showing the vessel was stationary; forensic inspection of wreckage; or official investigative findings linking the distress call to mechanical failure (not found in current reporting). None of these items appear in the provided sources (not found in current reporting).
6. Why this matters: law, accountability and investigations
If surviving families and governments’ claims that civilians were killed are accurate, legal and diplomatic consequences follow; already lawmakers and legal experts are questioning whether follow‑up strikes on survivors could amount to war crimes, and multiple investigations and congressional scrutiny are underway [7] [1]. Public reporting shows a mixture of confirmed military assertions and contested local accounts, underscoring the need for transparent evidence that has not been supplied in the sources here [6] [8].
Limitations: This analysis uses only the supplied articles. The sources document contested identities of those killed, families’ legal petitions, and U.S. operational claims, but they do not supply direct technical evidence of engine failure, boat immobility, or a distress call tied to mechanical trouble for the Sept. 15 incident [3] [4] [5].