In Washington, Confusion Deepens Over September 2 Strike as Trump Officials Shift Blame Down the Chain of Command

WASHINGTON — A widening crisis is engulfing the Trump administration as new testimony, shifting accounts, and rising legal questions continue to reshape public understanding of the U.S. military strike conducted on September 2. What began as a tightly framed national-security operation has now expanded into a broader debate on accountability, legality, and the role of civilian leadership in wartime decision-making.

In interviews this week, retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hurtling said he believes the “second strike” described by lawmakers — a re-engagement against survivors — constitutes a likely violation of the laws of war, contradicting claims from Defense Secretary Pete Hexith that the controversy reflects nothing more than the “fog of war.”

“This is only the beginning,” Hurtling said, warning that additional footage, audio, and internal timelines would emerge as Congress accelerates its investigations. “A restrike — not a double tap — is something entirely different. And it raises serious legal questions.”

A President Distancing Himself From His Own Chain of Command

The administration’s narrative has shifted repeatedly in the weeks since the strike. President Donald Trump has publicly expressed “full confidence” in Hexith, while Hexith has expressed similar confidence in Admiral Bradley, the officer who authorized the operation. Yet as lawmakers intensify their inquiries, the line of responsibility has begun to blur.

Political strategist Susan Del Persio described the dynamic as “classic Trump.”

“He stands behind someone until the moment he doesn’t,” she said. “He did it with Cabinet secretaries in his first term. The only difference now is that the firing won’t be via tweet — it will be via Truth Social.”

Del Persio warned that the slow drip of conflicting details, competing testimonies, and political defensiveness “muddies the waters” for the American public and risks thrusting the military into a partisan brawl in ways not seen in previous administrations.

Transparency Promised — and Delayed

Questions intensified after reporters asked Secretary Hexith whether he would release operational footage of the strike — footage President Trump had already dismissed as “no big deal.”

Hexith declined to answer twice, responding only with a tight smile.

Military officials who will testify before Congress reportedly plan to bring film, audio, and detailed operational logs, suggesting a growing divide between civilian leaders seeking to frame the narrative and uniformed officers emphasizing documented chronology.

A notable breach of protocol occurred Friday, when Admiral Bradley testified before Congress without the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs — a break from long-standing practice signaling institutional unease.

“They’re Not War Criminals — They’re Warriors”

Inside the Pentagon, frustration has begun to surface. Officials close to the investigation say service members feel exposed — celebrated as “warriors” when decisions go right, but potentially abandoned when scrutiny grows.

“If he committed premeditated murder, then Duncan did as well. Then I did as well,” one veteran said during a broadcast discussion. “What do you do — put us all in jail?”

A Veteran Warns: “This Wasn’t a War — It Was Just Murder”

The sharpest assessment came from Steve Kennedy, a former U.S. Army Airborne Infantry soldier who now leads the People’s Rarity Project. Speaking on air, Kennedy noted that Congress has not authorized any war, making the legal framework radically different from Iraq or Afghanistan.

“If someone is out of the fight, they are off-limits. We were trained on that over and over,” he said.
“If we’re not in a war, then firing on survivors isn’t a war crime — it’s just murder.”

Kennedy emphasized that the confusion, the revisionist explanations, and the administration’s public defensiveness should alarm anyone currently serving.

His warning was stark: troops following questionable orders today may face prosecution under a future administration.

“Donald Trump won’t be president forever,” he said. “And when he’s gone, the legal exposure won’t land on him — it will land on the people who pulled the trigger.”

The Supreme Court’s Shadow: Immunity for One, Liability for Many

Complicating matters is the Supreme Court’s recent ruling expanding presidential immunity for “official acts.” Analysts note that the ruling shields a president from prosecution — but not the individuals who carry out the orders.

“Trump is immune in ways no one else is,” one legal expert said. “His staff isn’t. His commanders aren’t. His soldiers aren’t. The Court didn’t extend immunity downward.”

That dynamic has created what one former military attorney describes as “a jail-time scenario for people around him,” where Trump can order an action with no personal legal risk while those implementing it remain fully exposed to U.S. and international law.

A Crisis of Leadership — and Trust

Across Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties warn that the fragmented explanations and political maneuvering threaten to erode confidence not only in the administration, but in the military itself.

“People don’t follow every detail,” Del Persio said. “They pick a side. And when the military becomes the battleground for those sides, the country loses.”

With additional footage expected and congressional investigations accelerating, both legal and political consequences appear likely. What remains unclear is who will ultimately bear them.

For now, one truth hangs over the administration:
Donald Trump may be immune. No one else is.