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.
What legal memos or DOJ opinions supported drone strikes against US citizens abroad during the Obama era?
Executive summary
The Obama-era legal backing for drone strikes that could reach U.S. citizens overseas rested primarily on internal Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions and related classified “drone memos,” including a February 2010 OLC memo and a July 2010 OLC opinion that the government later released in redacted form [1] and on a partially released 2010 DOJ “white paper” used to explain policy [2]. Litigation and reporting show at least one prominent written OLC analysis and related documents were central to the administration’s claim it could lawfully use lethal force against Anwar al‑Awlaki, an American citizen alleged to be an operational al‑Qaeda leader [1] [2].
1. The core legal papers: OLC memos and the 2010 DOJ analysis
The materials most often cited as the legal architecture are OLC memoranda dated February 2010 and July 2010 and a 2010 Justice Department memo that was later partially released under litigation — documents that framed when the government could use lethal force against U.S. citizens abroad [1] [2]. The 2010 DOJ memo specifically analyzed the legality of a lethal operation against Anwar al‑Awlaki and, according to reporting and advocacy groups, provided the internal legal reasoning that the executive relied on before his 2011 killing [2] [1].
2. What those memos argued (as reported and released)
Reporting and the limited public releases indicate the OLC materials held that, under certain conditions, the executive could use lethal force against a U.S. citizen who was a senior operational leader of al‑Qaeda or an associated force located abroad, when capture was infeasible and the person posed an imminent threat — a framework reflected in the July 2010 and later documents and the administration’s public explanations [1] [3]. The documents released were heavily redacted; secondary reporting says they sought to justify action already authorized orally by OLC in late 2009 or early 2010 [1].
3. Secrecy, partial releases, and litigation pressure
The memos became public only after FOIA litigation and pressure from civil liberties groups and news organizations; the government released some documents in redacted form, and courts compelled partial disclosure [4] [2]. The ACLU and New York Times were involved in suits seeking fuller disclosure, and bipartisan senators supported those FOIA efforts because secrecy “frustrate[d] the purposes of FOIA” and public debate [4].
4. How the memos fit into policy and practice
Those DOJ opinions were not standalone: they fit into a broader executive process that included “targeting Tuesday” reviews and the Disposition Matrix policy apparatus, and they were cited as the legal underpinnings for covert and overt strike authorities used by the CIA, JSOC, and the military [5] [6]. The administration later published a White Paper and Presidential Policy Guidance to articulate some limits and standards, but critics and litigants argued the core legal rationales remained secret or redacted [2] [1].
5. Disputes over legality and sufficiency of the memos
Scholars, civil‑liberties lawyers, and human‑rights advocates disputed both the legal logic and the sufficiency of the memos. Academic reviews and law‑review pieces say the administration’s publicly stated legal claims were “seriously defective” in parts and that the memos sidestepped key constitutional questions about due process for citizens targeted abroad [7] [8]. At the same time, other scholars and some administration lawyers argued that when an American is an operational leader in an ongoing armed conflict, lethal force may be lawful under the law of war framework the memos applied [7] [6].
6. What the released documents do and don’t show
The partially released documents demonstrate that DOJ lawyers concluded there were circumstances in which the U.S. could lawfully use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad; they also show significant redactions of constitutional analysis and factual material, which has left critics saying the public cannot fully evaluate the government’s reasoning [2] [1]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, unredacted set of opinions explaining every legal step; many passages remain withheld [4].
7. Broader context and consequences
The memos and the strike on Anwar al‑Awlaki catalyzed litigation (e.g., Al‑Aulaqi cases), academic scrutiny, and continued public debate about executive power, secrecy, and the rules for targeting citizens outside active hostilities — debates captured in books and compilations like The Drone Memos and in congressional hearings [9] [3]. Critics warn that reliance on secret legal opinions risks eroding accountability; defenders caution operational necessity against emergent terrorist threats [9] [5].
If you want, I can extract and summarize the specific language that was made public from the February and July 2010 memos and the 2010 DOJ white paper (as available in the FOIA releases and The Drone Memos compilation) and map which portions remain redacted in the official releases [1] [2].