In part, Senator Cotton said:

“Well, what President Trump is trying to do and what I support is to protect Americans from these drugs, especially kids. Again we've had hundreds of thousands of Americans die of drug overdoses in recent years. And it's been proven that the best way to have a large-scale effect on these drug traffickers is to destroy these boats. Interdiction is very dangerous for our sailors or for our Coast Guardsmen. It's time-consuming. And it's clear over the years that it simply doesn't have the kind of impact that blowing up these boats does. Right now there's been a significant decrease in drugs trafficked into our country. And I bet there's a significant decrease in the number of cartel members who are willing to get on these boats.”

Senator Cotton’s full interview may be found here and below.

Kristen Welker: And joining me now is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who was in those briefings this week, Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Senator Cotton, welcome back to Meet the Press.

Senator Cotton: Thanks for having me on, Kristen.

Kristen Welker: Thank you so much for being here after a very big week. I want to ask you about our new reporting. NBC News is reporting this morning that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, his order was to kill all 11 individuals on that boat because they were on a list of narco-terrorists who intelligence and military officials determined could be legally targeted. Was Secretary Hegseth's order to kill everyone on the boat because they were on this target list, Senator?

Senator Cotton: The order, like the entire operation, Kristen, is to destroy these drug boats, which are running drugs into our country from foreign drug cartels and traffickers that are killing hundreds of Arkansans every year and hundreds of thousands of Americans. You know, of course before our military conducts such a strike, they have multiple sources of intelligence. They give high confidence that everyone on that boat is a foreign drug trafficker, not an innocent civilian who's being human trafficked for instance. And therefore, Secretary Hegseth said, and I agree, they're all valid targets. Now this controversy, let's remember, all started with a Washington Post story about nine days ago that said after the first strike, there were two survivors that were helpless. And then they were ordered to kill these helpless survivors. That is simply not the case. They were not floating in the ocean on a wooden plank or in life jackets. They were on a capsized vessel. They were not incapacitated in any way. It was entirely appropriate to strike the boat again to make sure that its cargo was destroyed. It is in no way a violation of the law of war. And I think the Washington Post owes Secretary Hegseth and especially Admiral Mitch Bradley, a highly decorated career Navy SEAL, an apology for that slander.

Kristen Welker: Okay. And we're going to get to what you saw in the video momentarily. But I just want to be very clear. But what you're saying is significant, Senator. It sounds like you're confirming – did Admiral Bradley brief lawmakers that in fact all of the people on that boat were on a military target list? Is that accurate?

Senator Cotton: I did not hear him personally say anything about a military target list. Now, he had several briefings throughout the day. I wasn't in the briefing, for instance, with Mark Warner, my counterpart in the Senate Intelligence Committee. I can only say what he told me. He said that they had high confidence based on multiple sources of intelligence that everyone on that boat was part of a foreign terrorist organization, and had been designated by the U.S. government –

Kristen Welker: So they could be legally –

Senator Cotton: – as drug cartels –

Kristen Welker: – targeted. They could be lethally --

Senator Cotton: Yes, that these were –

Kristen Welker: – and legally targeted –

Senator Cotton: Yes.

Kristen Welker: – he argued.

Senator Cotton: Yes.

Kristen Welker: Okay –

Senator Cotton: Both before the first strike and after the first strike.

Kristen Welker: Was Admiral Bradley acting on Secretary Hegseth's orders, Senator?

Senator Cotton: Well, anytime you have an operation like this there's an operation order. It's written down. It's got very detailed instructions. I think because this was the first strike, Secretary Hegseth and Admiral Bradley both wanted to be present and be making the decision. As you heard Secretary Hegseth in the opening say, he initiated the first strike. You've seen the video. There's a lot of smoke. It takes a long time to clear. I'm sure Secretary Hegseth had many other matters that he had to attend to. And he trusts Admiral Bradley. Once the smoke had cleared, once the cloud cover cleared, it was clear that the first strike had not destroyed the boat. And Admiral Bradley made the decision for the second strike. Now in subsequent strikes since then, because there's been more than 20, obviously it's no longer Secretary Hegseth or even four-star generals making that decision, nor should it be. But on the first strike I believe they both wanted to be present and be observing it.

Kristen Welker: Let me ask you about the aftermath of that first strike. The Pentagon's Law of War Manual, which you're familiar with having served in Iraq and Afghanistan says, quote, "Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal." Given that, how was that follow-on strike of two survivors legal, Senator?

Senator Cotton: Well, again, Kristen, they were not incapacitated. They were not in the water surviving only because they had a life jacket or hanging to a plank of wood. They were sitting on that boat. They were clearly moving around on it. That is in contrast, for instance, to another strike that Secretary Hegseth described just yesterday in October in which you had two survivors who were in that state. They were essentially just dog-paddling in the water. And what happened on that strike, a U.S. vessel went and picked those survivors up and took them back to their home country. That's just an example of how our military makes these decisions based on the facts and circumstances of each particular case consistent with laws and with the directive you just stated.

Kristen Welker: I hear you saying they weren't incapacitated. And yet Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking member in the House Armed Services committee, saw this very differently. He saw that video. He said, quote, "It looks like two classically shipwrecked people." Other lawmakers who saw the video said, "The two men appeared to raise their arms potentially to signal that they were trying to surrender." Senator, why did Admiral Bradley interpret those actions as anything other than these two men trying to seek help and survive?

Senator Cotton: Well, again, they were sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat. They weren't floating helplessly in the water. And Kristen, I don't think it matters all that much what they were trying to do. They looked at one point like they were trying to flip the boat back over presumably to rescue its cargo and continue their mission.

Kristen Welker: Or to stay afloat –

Senator Cotton: Maybe they –

Kristen Welker: – potentially?

Senator Cotton: Maybe they were signaling to other airplanes or drug cartel boats because they're in waters that are just off drug cartel areas. At one point the guy takes off his T-shirt. Maybe he's trying to get a suntan. It doesn't really matter what they were trying to do. What matters is they were not in a shipwrecked state, distressed, dog-paddling in the water at all. And therefore, that boat, its cargo, and those drug traffickers remained valid targets. And I think what the Democrats object to here is not the second strike, it's the first strike and every other strike –

Kristen Welker: And we are going to –

Senator Cotton: – on all these boats.

Kristen Welker: We are going to talk about that as well. You continue to talk about one of them took off his shirt as if he's trying to suntan. But again, your colleagues, some of them saying, "Look, they were waving their arms around." Isn't it possible that even the act of taking off a T-shirt could have been part of an attempt to get attention for help?

Senator Cotton: Or it could have been an attempt to signal to another cartel boat to come pick them up and pick up the cargo.

Kristen Welker: But is there confirmation of what –

Senator Cotton: Well, Kristen –

Kristen Welker: – they were doing –

Senator Cotton: – but again for –

Kristen Welker: – and what their intentions were –

Senator Cotton: – for Admiral Bradley's decision, it doesn't really matter what they were doing. They were on that boat. That boat was still a valid target. They were not in a state of distress on a plank of wood in the ocean like subsequent survivors were. And when that was the case in October, our military did the right thing. It sent a vessel. It picked them up. It took them back to shore.

Kristen Welker: You're saying this boat was a threat to the United States. And yet NBC is reporting that Admiral Bradley told the lawmakers the drugs were heading first to Suriname, that's another South American country, and then ultimately to Europe or Africa. How is a boat that's not heading to the United States an imminent threat to this country, Senator?

Senator Cotton: Well, that's one possibility based on the tactics and techniques that we've observed of these drug cartels. They send smaller boats to sea. And then they link up with a larger boat where they continue their mission. I didn't hear that specifically from Admiral Bradley in my briefing. But what we know is that these drug cartels, which are designated foreign terrorist organizations, are trafficking drugs to our shores. And when we have an opportunity to strike one of these boats, or the intelligence gives us high confidence that everyone on the boat is a valid target because they are associated with these cartels, then I think we need to strike it.

Kristen Welker: But, Senator –

Senator Cotton: Now, there's other cases when we don't have that high confidence, when there might be, for instance, young girls that are being trafficked. Then obviously our military wouldn't take that strike. I think it's much more likely that we're missing some opportunities to strike these boats and protect Americans because we don't have the same high level of confidence.

Kristen Welker: Senator, is there any hard evidence that shows that this particular boat was headed to the United States?

Senator Cotton: That didn't come up in my briefing. But again there's very reliable multiple sources of intelligence that tells us that this boat had drugs on it, that everyone on that boat was associated with these designated foreign terrorist organizations that are trying to kill American children.

Kristen Welker: But are you comfortable having the United States target a boat in which you have not seen evidence that it's actually heading to the United States, that it's an imminent threat?

Senator Cotton: Any boat loaded with drugs that is crewed by associates and members of foreign terrorist organizations that are trying to kill American kids I think is a valid target. I'm not just comfortable with it, I want to continue it.

Kristen Welker: Okay. Do you think that the video should be released in full to the American public as President Trump has said he would support?

Senator Cotton: So I personally don't have any problem with it. It's not gruesome. I didn't find it distressing or disturbing. It looks like any number of dozens of strikes we've seen on Jeeps and pickup trucks in the Middle East over the years. I will say that the department may have valid concerns about revealing what we know about tactics and techniques that these cartels are using or about our sources or methods. And I would trust Secretary Hegseth and his team to make the decision about whether they can declassify and release the video. But again, there's nothing remarkable on that video in my opinion.

Kristen Welker: Let's talk bigger picture, as you were just alluding to. The Trump administration overall, these military actions, has taken action against 22 alleged drug boats, killing 86 people. Now Republican Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio made the point. He said this, quote, "If the people in these boats were captured and had a trial and were convicted, they would not be subject to capital punishment. They would go to jail." Why should death without due process be the punishment for would-be drug smugglers at sea?

Senator Cotton: Well, what President Trump is trying to do and what I support is to protect Americans from these drugs, especially kids. Again we've had hundreds of thousands of Americans die of drug overdoses in recent years. And it's been proven that the best way to have a large-scale effect on these drug traffickers is to destroy these boats. Interdiction is very dangerous for our sailors or for our Coast Guardsmen. It's time-consuming. And it's clear over the years that it simply doesn't have the kind of impact that blowing up these boats does. Right now there's been a significant decrease in drugs trafficked into our country. And I bet there's a significant decrease in the number of cartel members who are willing to get on these boats.

Kristen Welker: But the United States doesn't shoot people at the border who are bringing drugs into the country. Why should it be different at sea? Are you saying we should start shooting people at the border?

Senator Cotton: We're – no, I'm not, Kristen. But we are going to the source where we have large-scale boats that are trafficking hundreds if not thousands of pounds of drugs that could kill thousands of Americans, hundreds of Arkansans a year. It is a highly effective and efficient way to stop these drugs from reaching our shores.

Kristen Welker: You are talking about the president protecting Americans, Arkansans from drugs, and yet just this week the president pardoned the former president of Honduras who trafficked more than 500 tons of cocaine into the United States. He was serving a 45-year sentence, Senator. How does that make America safer?

Senator Cotton: Well, I haven't spoken to the president about that pardon. There may be strategic reasons to pardon the former president of Honduras because of our relationship with Honduras and trying to move them in a more pro-American direction. I'll leave that open as a possibility. But Kristen, I think you know my general approach to crime is that we should lock them – we should convict them and that we should lock them up. And once they're locked up, we should keep them locked up.

Kristen Welker: So given that, do you oppose the pardon given that you're saying –

Senator Cotton: I'd have –

Kristen Welker: – you want to protect Arkansans?

Senator Cotton: I'd have to know more about the circumstances. Sometimes pardons of foreign nationals who have been leaders of other countries do have underlying strategic reasons. But my approach, as you know Kristen, to crime is to lock them up, throw away the key, and don't let them out.

Kristen Welker: The War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress of the reason for committing combat troops within 48 hours of their deployment, and it specifies that hostilities must end within 60 days unless Congress extends that period. If the president wants to continue these strikes, which he says he's going to do, do you believe he needs to seek congressional approval?

Senator Cotton: No, I don't, Kristen. There's literally hundreds if not thousands of examples of presidents using the military to protect America going back to the earliest days of our republic. You don't have to go back that far though. In 1989 George Bush authorized the invasion of Panama and overthrew its government but their illegitimate dictator was a U.S.-indicted drug trafficker. If George Bush can invade a Latin American country and overthrow its regime, I think President Bush has every power under the Constitution to strike boats in international waters from foreign terrorist-designated organizations.

Kristen Welker: Okay. Final question to you, Senator. The Pentagon's inspector general was out with a report this week concluding that when Secretary Hegseth shared secret information about the United States attack plan in a Signal group chat, he, quote, "created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots." Do you still have confidence in Secretary Hegseth?

Senator Cotton: Absolutely. 100%. And I've read the report, not just the public report, but the classified report. It exonerated Secretary Hegseth of any criminal wrongdoing, the rest of the group chat as well. And Kristen, by the time they were sharing that information on the Signal app, they were also calling their foreign counterparts to let them know what had happened on open lines. I just think this is a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.

Kristen Welker: But based on what the IG found, which found that he could have potentially caused harm to U.S. pilots, are you comfortable with the Pentagon continuing to use Signal to communicate sensitive information?

Senator Cotton: Well, I'm not going to opine on what communication apps or devices our government does or does not use and tell the bad guys that on national television –

Kristen Welker: Would you urge them not to use Signal though?

Senator Cotton: I am confident that Secretary Hegseth is making the right decisions to protect our country also to keep other administration officials and our foreign counterparts informed. I have total confidence in the job he's doing.

Kristen Welker: Senator Tom Cotton, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.

Senator Cotton: Thank you.