Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., expressed concerns on Sunday regarding the Biden administration's approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He stated that the White House is sending "mixed signals" about its commitment to support Ukraine. In an interview on ABC News' "This Week," Bacon criticized the administration for lacking moral clarity.

Bacon referred to a recent agreement that had a Thanksgiving Day deadline, labeling it a "surrender document" that would leave Ukraine vulnerable to Russia for years. He said, "It really was a surrender document that would have left Ukraine weak and vulnerable to Russia for decades to come." He noted that the agreement has shifted somewhat but emphasized the need for stronger advocacy for Ukraine from President Biden.

In related developments, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, former President Trump's son-in-law, are scheduled to meet with Ukrainian officials in Miami. Following this meeting, Witkoff and Kushner are expected to travel to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin later this week.

The U.S. remains engaged in international affairs, with Trump recently stating on Truth Social that the airspace above Venezuela should be considered "closed in its entirety." This statement follows a report indicating that Adm. Mitch Bradley ordered a second strike on a suspected drug-trafficking boat on September 2, allegedly at the direction of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Survivors from the first strike were reportedly targeted again after Hegseth allegedly ordered to kill everyone on board.

Bacon commented on the Washington Post report regarding Hegseth's orders, saying, "It is a big concern. Now, Secretary of Defense Hegseth denies it. We should get to the truth." He emphasized that killing surrendering individuals would violate the law of war, stating, "When people want to surrender, you don't kill them, and they have to pose an imminent threat. It's hard to believe that two people on a raft trying to survive would pose an imminent threat. So let's get the facts first."

Sen. Chris Van Hollen also weighed in on the allegations, suggesting that a war crime may have occurred. He stated, "Oh, I think it's very possible there was a war crime committed, of course, thought to be a war crime." When asked if the first strike could be considered murder, Van Hollen affirmed, "That's correct. Well, I'm saying that- they- it's either murder from the first strike if their whole theory is wrong."

This situation continues to develop, and further updates are expected as more information becomes available.