What differences exist between Biden administration legal rationale and prior administrations for targeted lethal force?
Executive summary
The Biden administration published a Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) setting rules for lethal strikes outside recognized warzones, emphasizing civilian protection language like “near certainty” but leaving key definitions and a classified annex; critics say the PPM preserves vague standards such as “imminence” and exempts some strikes under “collective self‑defense” [1]. Civil liberties groups and some lawmakers argue Biden’s approach mostly reuses Obama‑era legal frameworks and remains secretive, while administration documents acknowledge continued reliance on classified authorities and the 2001 AUMF where applicable [2] [3] [4].
1. Biden’s public change: a partially disclosed PPM framed as reform but limited in transparency
The Biden White House released a partially redacted Presidential Policy Memorandum governing lethal strikes outside recognized warzones in response to ACLU litigation and reporting; the PPM uses protective-sounding standards yet keeps significant portions and a classified annex secret, limiting public oversight of how lethal-force authority is applied [1] [2].
2. Legal language that echoes Obama: “imminence” and “near certainty” remain central
Advocates point out that Biden’s PPM retains concepts familiar from prior administrations — notably the contested tests of “imminence” and high confidence about civilian harm often called “near certainty” — which critics say are vague and can be interpreted permissively; Brookings traces how similar standards under Obama tightened targeting but still left room for controversy [1] [3].
3. Continuity with earlier rationales: classified authorities and the AUMF persist
Scholarly and policy analyses show continuity across administrations: the executive branch has historically relied on classified legal reasoning and application of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to justify strikes against non‑state actors, and Biden’s public reports acknowledge that application details appear in classified annexes, maintaining the pattern of secrecy [4] [5].
4. New claimed refinements meet skeptical civil‑liberties response
The ACLU and others welcomed disclosure but argued the PPM repeats a “failed approach,” offering weak bureaucratic safeguards that can be reversed by successors and that leave civilians unprotected — specifically criticizing exemptions, such as the administration’s use of a “collective self‑defense” theory to justify strikes in places like Somalia, which the ACLU says fall outside the PPM’s civilian‑harm rules [1] [2].
5. Congressional unease: senators demand clearer standards and accountability
Senate figures including Dick Durbin and Patrick Leahy have urged the president to end lethal force outside warzones or at least revise counterterrorism policy; they list practical questions about who is a lawful target, what evidentiary standard is required, who approves strikes, and how civilian harm is investigated — signaling bipartisan concern about legal and operational opacity [6].
6. Academic and NGO critiques stress rule‑of‑law and human‑cost gaps
Analysts at Fordham, Crisis Group and other commentators document a persistent lack of transparency across Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, arguing that secrecy prevents meaningful assessment of compliance with international law and obscures the human and legal costs of targeted killing programs [5] [4].
7. Two perspectives: administrative restraint vs. operational necessity
Supporters of the administration’s framework argue that maintaining covert authorities and classified annexes is necessary for operational security and to protect intelligence sources and methods; civil‑liberties groups and some lawmakers counter that secrecy undermines democratic accountability and allows legal standards like “imminence” to be interpreted too broadly [2] [1] [6].
8. What reporting does not answer: specific procedural changes and outcomes
Available sources document the existence of the PPM, its partial release, and criticism, but do not provide a full account of internal approval chains, precise legal definitions used by the administration, or comprehensive data on how the PPM changed strike rates or civilian‑harm investigations; those details remain in classified material or unreported [1] [4].
9. Bottom line for readers: more disclosure needed to assess real change
The Biden PPM presents a rhetorical shift that stresses civilian protections while retaining core legal tests and classified authorities used by predecessors; independent groups and some lawmakers argue this is continuity dressed as reform and call for greater transparency and congressional oversight to meaningfully evaluate the legal rationale and real-world consequences [1] [2] [6].