In September 2025, The New York Times reported that a covert US Navy SEAL operation on North Korea’s coast in 2019 killed several civilians and ended in failure. According to current and former officials cited by the paper, SEAL Team 6’s Red Squadron—known for high-risk missions including the 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden—was tasked with secretly planting a listening device to intercept Kim Jong-un’s communications. Instead, the mission collapsed after an encounter with local fishermen turned deadly, leaving no intelligence gained and a trail of questions about oversight and accountability.
The operation took place during the height of President Donald Trump’s personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un, which had produced summits in Singapore in June 2018, Hanoi in February 2019, and a symbolic handshake at the Korean Demilitarised Zone in June 2019. US intelligence agencies, The New York Times explained, had identified a blind spot in surveillance of North Korea’s leadership. The listening device was intended to bridge that gap and give Trump leverage in nuclear talks by revealing Kim’s private directives.
Origins in High-Stakes Diplomacy
Officials told The Times that the White House was warned of the mission’s extreme risks, including the chance of “catastrophic retaliation” if the insertion were exposed. Trump nonetheless approved the plan as a “necessary risk,” according to those officials, making the mission one of the most sensitive covert operations of his presidency. The planning drew on a 2005 precedent under President George W. Bush, when a similar device had been installed but later discovered and removed by Pyongyang.
Eight operators from SEAL Team 6’s Red Squadron were selected for their skill in underwater infiltration. They were launched from a US nuclear-powered submarine in the Sea of Japan, using swimmer delivery vehicles—mini-submarines designed for covert insertions—to approach the coast under cover of darkness. Their orders were to swim ashore, emplace the device near a North Korean communications hub, and return undetected.
A Mission Gone Wrong
According to the account, the SEALs ran into unexpected trouble before reaching their objective. While navigating inshore waters, they encountered a small North Korean fishing vessel carrying what officials later described as civilians—likely shellfish divers or fishermen working at night.
Believing discovery would compromise the mission and potentially endanger their lives, the SEALs opened fire, killing all on board. The number of victims remains uncertain, though The Times said multiple civilians died. Their bodies were reportedly weighted and sunk to prevent evidence of the clash. The team aborted the mission and exfiltrated to the submarine without planting the device.
Pentagon Review and Rules of Engagement
A classified Pentagon review later ruled the killings justified under the operation’s rules of engagement. The ROE permitted lethal force if non-combatants threatened mission secrecy or operator safety. Some former SEALs quoted anonymously by the paper said the fishermen were unarmed and posed no imminent threat, calling the justification a stretch.
Notably, the operation was never disclosed to Congressional oversight committees, a decision that The Times said violated standard notification requirements for covert actions. The lack of transparency has provoked debate in Washington about whether the Trump administration skirted legal obligations in order to carry out high-risk missions with minimal scrutiny.
Pentagon
Photo : AP
The mission required presidential approval because of its risks. Multiple officials quoted in The Times said Trump signed off, considering the intelligence payoff worth the gamble. But after the September 2025 revelations, ABC News recorded Trump flatly denying knowledge, telling reporters, “I know nothing about it.” The denial fits a familiar pattern, as critics noted, of Trump distancing himself from controversial operations once they become public.
Silence from Pyongyang, Shock Abroad
Interestingly, North Korea has never publicly acknowledged the incident. Analysts quoted by Reuters suggested Pyongyang may not have linked the civilian deaths to a US team at the time, or may have chosen silence to avoid jeopardising summit diplomacy. Abroad, however, news of the operation has raised sharp criticism.
On social media, anti-war commentators reacted with outrage. One activist writing on X on 6 September called the episode a “botched covert strike that killed innocents,” while others argued it highlighted the dangers of giving special operations forces broad leeway under secretive rules. Though these posts reflect anger, their reach and representativeness remain uncertain.
Strategic Risks and Ethical Fallout
For US policymakers, the botched mission underscores the thin line between intelligence ambition and diplomatic catastrophe. Had Pyongyang tied the killings to Washington in 2019, the fallout could have derailed nuclear talks or triggered military retaliation. Instead, the episode remained buried until investigative reporters uncovered it years later.
US Spec Ops operatorThe revelations have drawn comparisons to the 2005 device-planting mission under George W. Bush, which succeeded tactically but was eventually discovered. In both cases, the risk of exposure carried potentially catastrophic consequences, yet presidents judged the potential intelligence too valuable to forego.
What We Know — and What We Don’t
What is known is that a 2019 mission by SEAL Team 6 was authorised, attempted, and aborted; that several civilians were killed; and that Trump later denied knowledge. What remains uncertain are the precise casualty count, the classified wording of the rules of engagement, and the full details of internal deliberations inside the Pentagon and the White House.
Until those details are declassified, the 2019 botched strike will remain a case study in the risks of covert action: intelligence missions designed to secure advantage at the bargaining table can also end in tragedy, controversy and silence.