Bombing then were illegal and was not authorized. Right
Executive summary
Available sources document multiple terrorist attacks and government actions in 2025 but do not directly state or settle a legal claim that a specific “bombing then were illegal and was not authorized.” Reporting shows vehicle and bombing attacks described as terrorism (New Orleans truck attack killed 14) and that states and militaries have carried out airstrikes and bombings (e.g., strikes on Houthi positions); sources do not directly adjudicate the lawfulness or authorization status of any single bombing referenced in your query (p1_s3 [1] p1_s1).
1. What the record in 2025 shows — violent attacks and state strikes
Open-source chronologies list violent non‑state actor attacks such as the New Orleans truck attack that killed 14 people on New Year’s Day and which investigators said was ISIS‑inspired (p1_s3 [3]0). At the same time, state actors engaged in bombing campaigns abroad: analysts note the United States, United Kingdom and Israel have “taken turns bombing Houthi positions” to blunt attacks on shipping in the Red Sea [1]. Comprehensive lists of incidents categorize both terrorism by non‑state actors and separate military operations; the datasets and trackers distinguish state force from terrorist incidents (p1_s1 p1_s4).
2. Lawfulness and authorization are separate questions not resolved by event lists
The available incident lists and commentary document what happened and who was accused, but they do not determine whether a particular bombing was legal or presidentially or ministerially authorized. Chronologies and think‑tank pieces report attacks and counter‑strikes; they do not function as judicial findings or executive records of lawful authorization (p1_s1 [3]4). If you seek a legal determination about a specific bombing’s authorization or lawfulness, those conclusions must come from courts, official government documents, or indictments — sources not provided in the current set (not found in current reporting).
3. Where reporting assigns blame — allegations vs. adjudication
Some pieces recount complaints and allegations naming officials in litigation contexts; for example, a complaint quoted in Just Security alleges Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “was responsible for ordering the bombing of boats” and claims ratification by the president — that is an allegation in a complaint, not a court judgment [2]. Distinguish allegations in filings from proven fact: complaint language signals legal strategy and accusation, not definitive legal status [2].
4. Different framings in sources — terrorism trackers vs. policy commentaries
Databases and lists (Wikipedia, START GTD) catalog incidents for historical and analytical purposes — they define terrorism to include non‑state political violence but explicitly treat state military operations separately (p1_s1 [4] [3]5). Policy commentaries (RAND, FPRI, Atlantic Council) analyze implications — for example, RAND frames vehicle attacks as part of a broader terrorist trend and FPRI notes state strikes against the Houthis as deterrent measures — offering context but not legal rulings (p1_s6 [1] p1_s3).
5. Common sources of confusion — “bombing” can mean many things
Reporting uses “bombing” to describe a wide range of acts: improvised explosive devices used by attackers, vehicle bombs, and state airstrikes. The legal and political status of each differs: a non‑state actor’s bombing is generally a criminal/terrorist act; a state’s bombing may be framed as a military operation under domestic and international law, with legality depending on authorization, target, and law of armed conflict principles — matters not decided by incident lists or commentary alone (p1_s10 [1] [3]5).
6. How to get a definitive answer about authorization or illegality
To establish whether a specific bombing “was illegal and was not authorized,” obtain: (a) official presidential or ministerial orders or written authorizations; (b) court findings, indictments, or international adjudications; or (c) declassified intelligence or internal memos cited in reliable reporting. The current search set contains allegations and incident descriptions but not those decisive documents (p1_s2 p1_s1).
Limitations and competing perspectives
Available sources document incidents and policy responses but do not adjudicate legal guilt or illegality for specific bombings; allegations appear in legal complaints and editorial commentary (p1_s2 [3]4). Some analysts emphasize the necessity of strikes to deter threats, while legal advocates and plaintiffs can allege unlawful conduct — both perspectives appear in the material but neither provides final legal determinations (p1_s14 p1_s2).