FOLLOW US

The New York Times has taken the U.S. Department of Defense to court, demanding the release of classified surveillance footage from deadly U.S. military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in New York federal court, the newspaper and investigative reporter Charlie Savage accused the Pentagon of violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by failing to meet statutory deadlines and effectively denying access to the requested materials.

According to the complaint, the Times exhausted all administrative channels after the Defense Department ignored or delayed multiple requests for footage of the strikes, which were publicly announced by former President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on social media.

“No exemptions permit the withholding of the documents sought by this request,” the Times asserted, urging the court to compel the Pentagon to release the videos.

The Strikes at the Center of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit seeks footage from three separate incidents: a Sept. 2 strike in the Caribbean Sea that killed 11 people, an Oct. 16 submarine strike that killed two alleged narcoterrorists, and an Oct. 27 attack that left one survivor presumed dead.

Trump, who personally announced the first two operations on his Truth Social platform, claimed the targets were Venezuelan gang members and drug traffickers linked to Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal group.

Hegseth, who later confirmed the Oct. 27 operation on X (formerly Twitter), said only one of 15 individuals survived. The Times noted, however, that the survivor is now believed to have died as well.

The publication’s FOIA requests, submitted by Savage, sought one hour of surveillance footage before and after the September attack and full-length videos from the October operations. The requests also asked for footage showing survivors and rescues, even extending five minutes past any visual disappearance beneath the waves.

Pentagon Delays, “Unusual Circumstances,” and FOIA Failures

Savage first filed his request with U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) — the branch responsible for military operations in Central and South America — on Sept. 9, a week after Trump publicized the strike.

SOUTHCOM acknowledged receipt but warned it could not respond within FOIA’s 20-day limit, citing “unusual circumstances” that required consultation with multiple Defense Department components. The agency did not provide a completion timeline or any estimate for review.

When Savage renewed his request on Nov. 1, asking for additional footage from the October strikes, SOUTHCOM gave the same response — no denial, but no action either.

“The Defense Department cannot rely on exemptions to conceal footage that was already partially declassified and publicly released,” the Times argued, referencing the 29 seconds of video Trump had shared online.

NYT Seeks Court-Ordered Release of Strike Videos

The Times and Savage are now asking the court to declare the records public and subject to release, to compel the Defense Department to conduct an adequate search, and to deliver the requested materials within 20 days of any court order.

The lawsuit underscores growing concerns over military transparency, particularly when strikes result in civilian or unidentified casualties. It also highlights the unprecedented communication strategy of U.S. officials — announcing classified missions directly on social media platforms rather than through formal briefings.

New Strikes and Fresh Secrecy

Adding intrigue to the lawsuit, Hegseth announced on Monday — the same day the Times filed its complaint — that the military had carried out two additional strikes in the Eastern Pacific against alleged drug-smuggling vessels, killing six people. His post included a 15-second video clip, but no details on the targets or identities of those killed.

The Defense Department declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. The New York Times likewise refrained from public remarks.

The newspaper is represented in-house by David E. McCraw and Jackson Busch. Counsel for the Defense Department has not yet been identified