Did sept 15 2025 video show 3 people aboard columbian fishing boat not moving with distress call placed according to President petro
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Video released by the White House and shared by President Trump on Sept. 15 was described by U.S. officials as showing a targeted boat “not moving in the water,” and the Sept. 15 strike is the incident Colombian President Gustavo Petro has said killed a Colombian fisherman, Alejandro Carranza, whose family has filed an Inter‑American Commission on Human Rights complaint [1] [2]. Petro has publicly said the boat was adrift with a distress signal and that Colombians were aboard; U.S. officials have not publicly released corroborating evidence and have called some of Petro’s broader claims “baseless” [3] [4].
1. What the president said and what the video shows
President Trump posted a video of a strike on Sept. 15 and described the strikes as hitting drug‑carrying vessels; reporting about the release notes that the video of the Sept. 15 incident shows a boat that “was not moving in the water” before being struck, according to contemporaneous coverage [1]. Multiple outlets reproduced screen grabs posted by the White House and the president; those images and clips have been central to competing narratives about whether the vessel was a smuggling craft or a disabled fishing boat [2] [1].
2. Petro’s claim: three people aboard, distress call and engine failure
Colombian President Gustavo Petro publicly asserted that a Colombian fishing boat was struck on Sept. 15, that it had a distress signal up due to engine failure and that Colombians were aboard — including a man later identified by Petro and family members as Alejandro Carranza [3] [5]. Petro said Colombia would seek explanations and has accused U.S. forces of violating Colombian sovereignty [3] [6].
3. Family and legal challenge: the human rights petition
Carranza’s family, represented by attorney Dan Kovalik, filed a complaint with the Inter‑American Commission on Human Rights alleging that the Sept. 15 strike killed a fisherman and amounted to an extrajudicial killing; the petition names the Sept. 15 attack and says U.S. forces bombed his fishing boat off Colombia’s Caribbean coast [2] [7]. The filing frames the Sept. 15 strike as the factual predicate for the IACHR action [2] [7].
4. U.S. portrayal and gaps in public evidence
The Trump administration has insisted the strikes target “narco‑traffickers” and released selective video material; however, reporting notes the U.S. has not publicly disclosed comprehensive evidence tying the Sept. 15 vessel specifically to drug trafficking or identifying all those aboard, and images Trump described (bags of narcotics) were not released by the military or White House at the time [8] [9]. U.S. officials have sometimes disputed Petro’s assertions about nationality and context, calling some claims “baseless” in diplomatic exchanges [4].
5. Independent reporting and eyewitness context
Local Colombian reporting and witnesses in Santa Marta say the type of boat visible in social media clips resembles fishing craft from the region, and family and community sources describe Carranza as a lifelong fisherman, not a trafficker — assertions that underpin the IACHR complaint [10] [7]. International outlets note that the strikes have killed dozens and that international legal experts and regional governments have raised concerns about due process and legality [2] [9].
6. Conflicting narratives and political context
The Sept. 15 incident sits inside a broader, politically charged standoff: Petro has openly clashed with the U.S. administration and suspended intelligence sharing while calling for criminal probes; the White House frames the strikes as a drug‑control measure. Both sides have incentives — Petro to defend Colombian citizens and sovereignty, and the U.S. to portray an aggressive counter‑narcotics posture — which complicates independent verification [6] [11].
7. What reporting does and does not establish
Available reporting shows a video was released and described as a non‑moving boat that was struck Sept. 15, and it documents Petro’s claim that Colombians and a disabled fishing vessel were involved and the Carranza family’s IACHR petition [1] [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention declassified forensic evidence publicly proving the occupants’ identities or that the vessel indisputably carried narcotics on Sept. 15; they likewise do not show a public U.S. release of chain‑of‑custody or on‑scene forensic documentation tying that specific footage to the legal claims [9] [8].
Bottom line
Yes — a Sept. 15 video was released that reporters described as showing a boat “not moving in the water” and that strike is the one linked by Petro and Carranza’s family to a fatal attack; but public reporting shows disputed accounts about who was aboard, whether the vessel signalled distress, and whether evidence of drug trafficking has been made available [1] [3] [2]. Independent verification remains limited in the public record and the case is now the subject of international legal complaint [7].