Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did the 2013 and 2016 Department of Justice opinions differ on due process and imminence for targeting U.S. citizens?
Executive summary
The 2013 DOJ “white paper” framed when the executive could lawfully use lethal force against U.S. citizens abroad by setting three conditions: an informed, high‑level official’s finding of an imminent threat; capture infeasible; and conduct consistent with law‑of‑war principles [1]. Subsequent reporting and legal advocacy emphasized that the white paper stopped short of public release of underlying Office of Legal Counsel memos and left open debates over what “imminent” and “due process” mean in practice [2] [3] [4].
1. The 2013 white paper: a narrow set of conditions, not full disclosure
In February–May 2013 the Department of Justice produced a public “white paper” that narrowed the government’s claim of lawful authority to three conditions for killing a U.S. citizen abroad: [5] an informed, high‑level official determined the person posed an imminent threat to the United States; [6] capture was infeasible and continued to be monitored for feasibility; and [7] the operation would comply with applicable law‑of‑war principles [1]. The paper was intentionally limited in scope and did not release the classified OLC memos that reporters and civil‑liberties groups sought, prompting calls from members of Congress and the ACLU for fuller disclosure [2] [4].
2. How “imminence” was framed in 2013: functional and contextual, not temporally strict
The white paper’s concept of “imminent” in 2013 was presented as a measure tied to ongoing operational intelligence about planned attacks—not necessarily a narrow, immediate‑minutes test—and paired with the executive’s assessment of threat and infeasibility of capture [1]. Critics and scholars have noted that this framing creates a wide margin for executive judgment about when an American abroad becomes a lawful target, raising concerns about risk of error and the absence of judicial involvement [3] [8].
3. Due process in 2013: administrative/judgmental, not judicial
DOJ’s white paper argued that meeting the three conditions could make a lethal operation lawful without prior judicial process; the document effectively treated a senior government determination as the operative procedural safeguard rather than prior court review [1]. Civil liberties groups and legal analysts pointed out that the administration did not publish the underlying legal opinions explaining why such executive determinations satisfy constitutional due process—fueling disputes about whether the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are respected in practice [4] [3].
4. Litigation and transparency fights that followed: demand for the memos
After the white paper’s release, the ACLU and others sued under FOIA seeking the OLC memos said to contain the detailed legal reasoning; the resulting litigation and appellate rulings left many underlying documents withheld and debate about the law unresolved in public [4]. The ACLU’s public statements emphasized that the white paper “details” the government’s claimed authority but that core legal opinions remained undisclosed [4].
5. Legal and scholarly pushback: international law and procedural questions
International‑law scholars and legal reviews criticized the white paper for leaving open how international humanitarian law, human rights law, and traditional notions of due process apply outside active battlefields; the paper’s limited analysis prompted calls for a fuller exposition or disclosure of legal bases [9] [1]. Academic work has also applied tests like Mathews v. Eldridge to argue that some procedural protections should attach even in counterterror operations targeting citizens abroad [8].
6. What the public record does not show (and why that matters)
Available sources do not mention a publicly released 2016 DOJ opinion that supersedes or substantially revises the 2013 white paper’s core standards; reporting and advocacy cited here focus on the 2013 public white paper and withheld OLC memos, and litigation over disclosure continued through 2016 without full public exposure of those internal memoranda [4] [3]. Because the underlying OLC memos were withheld, the precise internal legal reasoning and any later classified opinions remain unavailable in current reporting [4] [3].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
The executive branch framed the 2013 standard as a necessary, narrowly tailored tool to protect the public; Members of Congress, civil‑liberty groups, and some scholars portrayed it as an overbroad delegation of life‑and‑death power without independent judicial review [2] [4] [3]. Advocacy organizations pushed for transparency to check potential executive overreach, while DOJ and national‑security proponents emphasized operational secrecy and flexibility—an implicit tension between accountability and classified counterterror operations [2] [1].
Bottom line: the 2013 public DOJ statement set out three conditions tying imminence and feasibility of capture to executive determination and law‑of‑war constraints, but it withheld the internal legal memoranda that would clarify how due process is treated operationally—leaving contested legal and policy questions unresolved in the public record [1] [4] [3].