A group of Navy SEALs penetrated North Korea in early 2019 in an attempt to compromise North Korea's nuclear communications channel. The mission may or may not have been compromised, and the resulting shootout, according to The New York Times, left a handful of North Koreans, possibly civilians, dead. The question is, why is this story running now?
The Mission
In 2018, as President Trump was engaged in high-wire nuclear diplomacy with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a Navy SEAL team was dispatched on a high-risk, high-payoff mission to bug the communications network used to discuss nuclear strategy and operations. The reason was simple: without accurate intelligence on North Korea's capabilities and intentions, President Trump couldn't complete what could be a significant diplomatic breakthrough.
Technical intelligence collection had come up dry, and flipping sources inside North Korea's nuclear weapons sector had proven impossible. The solution was the good, old-fashioned, black bag job. A SEAL team would land and insert a high-tech "bug" in the secure communications line. It was basically a land version of Operation Ivy Bells.
The mission obviously started with a tasking order from the White House, probably to examine the feasibility of the operation. US Special Operations Command received the mission, developed an operational concept, and briefed President Trump. President Trump signed off on the mission.
According to the NYT report, the SEALs were highly confident of their ability to enter North Korea and complete the mission because they had used a minisub to go ashore in North Korea in 2005 for an unspecified purpose. I remain more than a little unclear on how carrying out a very different operation against the same target 14 years ago makes one confident about a mission today. Hopefully, this was just a fantasy by the reporter.
After months of rehearsals and gathering intelligence on ship and small boat movement to minimize the chance of compromise, the mission was launched in January/early February of 2019.
Insertion
The SEALs were carried to North Korean waters in a dry deck shelter-equipped submarine carrying two SEAL Delivery Vehicles. The submarine would deposit a team of eight SEALs offshore in submersibles. A two-man crew would remain with the SDVs.
The plan called for the Navy to sneak a nuclear-powered submarine, nearly two football fields long, into the waters off North Korea and then deploy a small team of SEALs in two mini-subs, each about the size of a killer whale, that would motor silently to the shore.
The mini-subs were wet subs, which meant the SEALs would ride immersed in 40-degree ocean water for about two hours to reach the shore, using scuba gear and heated suits to survive.
Once the SDVs departed, the submarine would head for deeper water and await a signal to return. It was then that the ugly truth Carl von Clausewitz observed about "friction" and warfare raised its head: "Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult."
The SEALs were operating in radio silence because any transmission would alert North Korean security forces. The mission commander remained on the submarine.
Typically, Special Operations forces have drones overhead during a mission, streaming high-definition video of the target, which SEALs on the ground and senior leaders in far-off command centers can use to direct the strike in real time. Often, they can even listen in on enemy communications.
But in North Korea, any drone would be spotted. The mission would have to rely on satellites in orbit and high-altitude spy planes in international airspace miles away that could provide only relatively low-definition still images, officials said.
It's along this point that I start feeling like something is missing.
The plan called for the mini-subs to park facing the same way, but after the second sub doubled back, they were pointing in opposite directions. Time was limited, so the group decided to release the shore team and correct the parking issue later.
This seems like an odd ad lib to make.
As the kinetic team swims ashore—the article says they had "untraceable weapons loaded with untraceable ammunition" and I presume sterile combat gear, though I don't know who that would fool if things went south—a North Korean boat carrying two or three people arrived in the area and stopped, in the perspective of the assault team, directly over the SDVs resting on the ocean floor.
That might have been a second mistake. Bobbing in the darkness was a small boat. On board was a crew of North Koreans who were easy to miss because the sensors in the SEALs’ night-vision goggles were designed in part to detect heat, and the wet suits the Koreans wore were chilled by the cold seawater.
Wait? What? After months of painstaking observation, a North Korean boat arrives in the mission area and stops above what we Army guys would call the Objective Rally Point, and they are wearing wet suits that defeated thermal imagery. That seems like a lot of coincidences.
As the boat arrived, the SDV operators began shifting their parking arrangements.
Back at the mini-subs, the pilots repositioned the sub that was facing the wrong way. With the sliding cockpit doors open for visibility and communication, a pilot revved the electric motor and brought the sub around.
That was probably a third mistake. Some SEALs speculated afterward in briefings that the motor’s wake might have caught the attention of the North Korean boat. And if the boat crew heard a splash and turned to look, they might have seen light from the subs’ open cockpits glowing in the dark water.
The boat started moving toward the mini-subs. The North Koreans were shining flashlights and talking as if they had noticed something.
Then things started to go pear-shaped.
With communications blacked out, there was no way for the shore team to confer with the mini-subs. Lights from the boat swept over the water. The SEALs didn’t know if they were seeing a security patrol on the hunt for them or a simple fishing crew oblivious to the high-stakes mission unfolding around them.
A man from the North Korean boat splashed into the sea.
If the shore team got into trouble, the nuclear-powered sub had a group of SEAL reinforcements standing by with inflatable speedboats. Farther offshore, stealth rotary aircraft were positioned on U.S. Navy ships with even more Special Operations troops, ready to sweep in if needed.
The SEALs faced a critical decision, but there was no way to discuss the next move. The mission commander was miles away on the big submarine. With no drones and a communications blackout, many of the technological advantages that the SEALs normally relied on had been stripped away, leaving a handful of men in wet neoprene, unsure of what to do.
As the shore team watched the North Korean in the water, the senior enlisted SEAL at the shore chose a course of action. He wordlessly centered his rifle and fired. The other SEALs instinctively did the same.
They lit up the North Koreans and aborted the mission, paying attention to detail on the way out: "the SEALs punctured the boat crew’s lungs with knives to make sure their bodies would sink."
Great story, right? Not every mission goes as planned, and the real test of your character is how you play the cards you're dealt. In this case, given the information at his disposal, I find it impossible to fault the team leader who decided it was time to pull pitch and get the hell out of Dodge.
But my original question is unanswered. Why this story? And why now?
The story throws some shade on the SEALs "because the SEALs have an uneven track record that for decades has largely been concealed by secrecy." That may not be an unfair statement, but it also is not a new allegation. And while the article claims "The New York Times proceeds cautiously when reporting on classified military operations," it gives details on SEAL Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures that will make all future SEAL cross-beach operations more vulnerable to compromise. It also, quite possibly, reveals to the North Koreans information they did not have until today, including that we were aware of their secure communications channel for nuclear operations, that we knew where it was located, and that we could tap the cable. The damage done to the U.S. by this leak was substantial, and a major effort should be made to find the source and send them to prison.
A lot of people are getting lost in the details of the SEAL raid into North Korea story, but the central fact is being ignored, which is that this is a monumentally bad leak carried out with deeply destructive intent. Everyone understands there are special operations around the…
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 5, 2025
A lot of people are getting lost in the details of the SEAL raid into North Korea story, but the central fact is being ignored, which is that this is a monumentally bad leak carried out with deeply destructive intent. Everyone understands there are special operations around the world that the public never hears about. We did not need the New York Times to tell us that. The only real question is why this particular operation was leaked at this particular moment. The answer is that deep state operatives are once again trying to sabotage Trump’s peace initiatives.
What makes it even worse is that the SEALs covered their tracks so the dead bodies would sink, which means the North Koreans probably did not know what happened, until they found out about it this morning. Now, instead of thinking their fishermen were lost at sea, they know they were killed by U.S. troops. There isn’t a single way this leak serves the United States, but it massively sabotages Trump, just as the horrific leaks did throughout his first term.
This time has to be different. There must be an all-out effort to find the leakers and put them in prison for 25 years so it never happens again. The New York Times claims it spoke to two dozen people, but that’s misdirection. It doesn’t say all 24 told them about the mission. It was probably one or two, very likely from Biden’s circle. Find them.
The real target here is President Trump. The NYT story starts with the premise, "The Trump administration did not notify key members of Congress who oversee intelligence operations, before or after the mission. The lack of notification may have violated the law." I think there will be an attempt to equate this mission with the destruction of a drug cartel boat (Trump's Attack on Drug Cartel Is 'Illegal' and 'Murder' According to Very Smart People – RedState) and make Congressional notification an issue. The NYT also labels the dead North Koreans as civilians without any evidence. I think the evidence presented in the story points toward the dead men being military. North Korean civilians don't meander about in boats in the dead of the night. They don't wear wetsuits. They don't jump in the ocean in response, possibly, to a surface disturbance. And they, statistically, shouldn't show up in the middle of a SEAL operation.
All of this is creating a narrative that Trump is a lawbreaker, that he authorizes the murder of civilians, that he's impulsive and likely to lead us into a war, and that he has a total disregard for "how we've always done it."
While some will paint Trump as an impulsive cowboy over this, I came away with a higher regard for the guts it took to green-light this mission. I was also impressed by his ability to conduct a public campaign aimed at building a relationship with Kim, while simultaneously authorizing an operation only a hair removed from war. But, of course, he did come up through real estate development...
RedState is your leading source for news and views on administration, politics, culture, and conservatism. If you appreciate our reporting and commentary, please consider becoming a member and supporting our efforts. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member