How many US drone strikes on American citizens

1. The headline case: Anwar al‑Awlaki and the legal fallout

The clearest, most cited instance is the 2011 U.S. strike that killed Anwar al‑Awlaki, an American‑Yemeni cleric the Obama administration said was an operational al‑Qaeda figure; that strike became the focal point of lawsuits and congressional scrutiny over the authority to target U.S. citizens abroad ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Reporting and legal materials repeatedly treated al‑Awlaki as the canonical example of a U.S. citizen targeted in an extra‑territorial lethal strike, and his death prompted debate over “due process” and the legal framework the administration used ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The contested second case: Abdulrahman al‑Awlaki

Sources note that Abdulrahman al‑Awlaki, a 16‑year‑old U.S. citizen and son of Anwar, died in a separate 2011 strike; his death intensified criticism because he was a minor and, by many accounts, not the stated target—this case is invoked in critiques of civilian harm and the administration’s targeting thresholds ^[2]. Critics and civil‑rights groups used Abdulrahman’s death to argue the program’s safeguards were insufficient ^[2].

3. How many U.S. citizens overall? The sources are silent on a full tally

Comprehensive trackers and investigative outlets have compiled strike counts and civilian casualty estimates over the years, showing hundreds of strikes and thousands of deaths in theaters like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, but the provided materials stop short of producing a verified, comprehensive count of U.S. citizens killed specifically by U.S. drone strikes ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Congressional hearings and legal summaries discuss the policy and legal categories rather than a neat citizen‑death ledger ^[3].

4. Context: scale of the drone program and civilian harm

Independent projects cited here document large numbers of strikes and significant civilian tolls—estimates across 2009–2016 show thousands killed and civilian shares ranging from roughly 7% to 15% in certain countries—demonstrating that civilian deaths have been a measurable concern even if not broken down by nationality in these sources ^{[5] [4]}. Major media and watchdog reporting situates the al‑Awlaki case within a much larger, long‑running campaign of targeted strikes ^{[6] [4]}.

5. Competing perspectives and political uses of the facts

Recent political debates reuse historical strike counts to score points: some actors cite large aggregate strike totals to criticize past administrations, while others defend strikes as necessary counterterrorism tools—sources show Republicans invoked Obama‑era strikes in 2025 debates even as critics pointed to civilian casualties and the al‑Awlaki case when condemning the practice ^{[2] [1]}. Congressional and NGO materials show both security justifications and rights‑based objections exist in the record ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Legal and policy frameworks that matter for counting

Congressional hearings and White House legal memoranda discussed when the U.S. can legally use lethal force against its own citizens abroad and the standards applied (e.g., “senior operational leader” criteria), but those discussions address policy thresholds rather than producing a public, audited list of U.S. citizens killed by strikes ^[3]. Reform advocates point to policy shifts—like Obama’s “near‑certainty” standard for avoiding civilian harm—as key context for understanding changes in strike patterns over time ^[7].

7. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

If your question is “how many U.S. citizens have been killed by U.S. drone strikes,” the confirmed, repeatedly cited examples in these sources center on Anwar al‑Awlaki and his son Abdulrahman; beyond that, the provided reporting and datasets document the program’s scale and civilian casualties but do not supply a definitive total count of U.S. citizens killed ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}. For a precise tally, additional primary records or comprehensive datasets—such as government declassified strike lists or consolidated investigative databases keyed by nationality—would be required; those are not contained in the present set of sources (not found in current reporting).