In a covert operation never before made public, a U.S. Navy SEAL mission inside North Korea in early 2019 resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians and sparked legal and ethical questions brought to light years later.
According to the New York Post, SEAL Team 6's classified attempt to install surveillance in North Korea unraveled when members opened fire on civilian divers, raising concerns over accountability and oversight.
The mission, carried out by the Red Squadron of SEAL Team 6, was approved during the Trump administration. This specific team had previously been involved in high-profile operations, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden. In early 2019, their new objective was to stealthily infiltrate North Korea to install a device aimed at intercepting communications from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Because of the mission’s high risk, it was kept highly classified and had the potential to derail U.S.-North Korea relations or spark a hostage crisis if discovered. Planning began months in advance, according to sources familiar with the operation. The team conducted intense rehearsals in freezing water and used advanced underwater gear, including heated suits and “wet subs” launched from a nuclear submarine, to prepare for the mission. President Donald Trump authorized the operation in February 2019, shortly before a diplomatic summit with Kim Jong Un in Vietnam. The timing was pivotal, as diplomatic efforts to ease tensions over North Korea's nuclear program were underway. Despite the high stakes, the team moved forward under tight secrecy and without typical briefings to congressional intelligence committees.
Unexpected Encounter Disrupts Covert Mission
As the SEALs reached the North Korean shore, their operation took a sudden turn. An unplanned appearance by a local fishing vessel threw their covert landing into jeopardy. The boat appeared to be carrying civilian shellfish divers who had not anticipated any contact with foreign forces. Unable to establish communication with their command center and fearing exposure, one of the senior enlisted SEALs made a critical decision to open fire. The SEALs killed two to three unarmed civilians who were believed to be harvesting shellfish. Reports indicate that after the shootings, the SEAL team attempted to cover up the incident through extreme measures.
According to sources, the bodies of the civilians were brought into the water and later mutilated to sink them. Specifically, the SEALs reportedly punctured the lungs with knives to prevent the corpses from resurfacing. This cover-up was done to avoid detection by North Korean authorities and maintain the secrecy of the failed operation.
Mission Aborted Before Device Deployment
The fatalities prompted the team to abort the mission immediately. As a result, the surveillance equipment that was central to the operation’s purpose was never deployed. The SEALs quickly retreated from North Korean territory following the botched contact with civilians. Despite the intense nature of what had occurred, there was no immediate visible reaction from the North Korean regime. However, U.S. intelligence tools, including spy satellites, later documented an increase in military activity in the coastal region where the mission took place. Whether or not North Korean leaders understood what had happened remains unknown.
Meanwhile, President Trump proceeded with the planned diplomatic summit with Kim Jong Un in Vietnam later in February. The meeting ended without an agreement on dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program, and by May of the same year, the country had resumed missile testing.
Oversight Gaps Prompt Legal Concerns
One of the most controversial aspects of the mission is that it was reportedly not disclosed to relevant congressional intelligence committees. Under federal law, covert operations traditionally require a briefing to key legislators for accountability and oversight. Experts have raised significant concerns over this omission.
Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia University, stated the mission represented a clear example of when Congress should have been informed. “The point is to ensure that Congress isn’t kept in the dark when major stuff is going on,” Waxman said. He emphasized that this operation falls squarely within what the committees expect to be briefed about. In the wake of these revelations, attention shifted to the fate of those involved in the mission. According to available information, several individuals who participated in or directed the covert operation later advanced in their military careers. This development has added to the controversy surrounding transparency and accountability in military operations.
Renewed Scrutiny Under Biden Administration
When former President Joe Biden entered office in 2021, his administration revisited the previously undisclosed mission. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III ordered a full examination of the operation, tasking the Army inspector general’s office with leading the effort. An investigation was quietly launched to reassess how the mission was approved and later concealed.
Some members of Congress were eventually briefed on the operation and its details, although these findings remain classified. The Biden administration has not made the investigation’s conclusions public, and efforts to obtain details from the White House or military branches have been unsuccessful. Media inquiries to the Navy and the White House went unanswered. The Pentagon issued a statement declining to comment on the issue. President Trump, when asked about the operation, denied knowledge of it entirely, stating, “I don’t know anything about it. I’m hearing it now for the first time.”
Debate Grows Over Covert Military Action
The mission’s exposure has reignited debates over the boundaries of executive authority in authorizing secret military actions. Legal scholars and government oversight advocates warn that such clandestine operations, if left unmonitored, undermine democratic accountability. The fact that civilian lives were lost in a mission aborted before achieving its objectives only deepens the concern.
The 2019 SEAL Team 6 mission adds to a growing number of covert U.S. actions that have come under scrutiny well after they occurred. With a renewed focus on transparency and ethics in military engagements, some observers say the United States must rethink how it conducts high-risk operations abroad — especially in areas where the fallout could spark international consequences. Though classified for years, the mission is now part of a broader conversation about the balance between national security and the rule of law. Whether further details will emerge remains uncertain, but for now, the operation stands as a cautionary tale of secrecy, risk, and the unintended cost of warfare in the shadows.
