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 were the circumstances surrounding Biden's alleged unauthorized use of force?
Executive summary
Claims that President Biden authorized the U.S. military to use lethal force against Americans or to override limits on domestic military action stem largely from a misunderstood September 2024 revision to DoD guidance and separate disputes over strikes abroad; independent fact-checkers and the Pentagon say the change did not authorize troops to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil [1] [2] [3]. Lawmakers and civil liberties groups, however, have separately warned that some overseas strikes — such as actions against Houthi targets — may lack clear congressional authorization under the War Powers Act and have labeled them “unauthorized” absent further congressional approval [4].
1. What sparked the “unauthorized use of force” headlines
The immediate controversy of fall 2024 centered on a routine Department of Defense update to Directive 5240.01 and related guidance about intelligence and assistance that some social-media posts and commentators said amounted to new authority to use lethal force against U.S. protesters or citizens. Multiple fact-checks and the Pentagon pushed back: Reuters reported the updated DOD directive does not authorize lethal military force against citizens [1], The Hill reported the Pentagon clarified troops were not authorized to use force against Americans during the election [2], and FactCheck.org said conservative influencers misrepresented a routine policy revision [3].
2. What the DOD language actually says and why it alarmed people
FactCheck.org notes the revised paragraph allows the Defense secretary to approve requests for “assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality,” and it explicitly contemplates situations where providing assistance “may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force” [3]. Critics and online posts presented that phrasing as a novel authorization to kill Americans on U.S. soil; fact-checkers and the Pentagon say the revision clarified existing procedures and did not override laws like the Posse Comitatus Act that restrict domestic military law-enforcement roles [3] [5].
3. Law and institutional guardrails cited by defenders of the administration
The Posse Comitatus Act [6] and departmental statements have been highlighted as barriers to the use of active-duty troops for domestic policing and lethal force against U.S. citizens; AFP’s fact-check flagged Posse Comitatus as a legal limit and reported DOD guidance did not change that constraint [5]. Reuters and other outlets similarly concluded the directive did not grant new power to use lethal force against citizens [1]. The Pentagon’s public clarifications buttressed that interpretation [2].
4. Where the “unauthorized” label has a separate, substantive grounding — strikes abroad
Separately from the domestic-DOD controversy, nearly 30 House members in January 2024 described U.S. strikes in the Red Sea/Yemen theater as “unauthorized,” urging the administration to explain the legal basis and to seek congressional authorization; they invoked the War Powers Act’s 48-hour notification requirement and its 60-day limit without congressional approval [4]. This demonstrates that accusations of “unauthorized” force can legitimately arise in the narrower context of overseas strikes and the President’s war powers, distinct from the social-media debate over domestic use of force [4].
5. Civil liberties and transparency concerns that complicate the debate
Organizations such as the ACLU have pushed back on secrecy around presidential policies governing lethal strikes abroad, arguing that redacted or classified lethal-force rules hinder public oversight and democratic accountability [7] [8]. The ACLU’s statements emphasize that even if internal legal reviews exist, secrecy about when and how lethal force is used remains a central civil‑liberties concern [7] [8].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas to watch for
Right-leaning influencers amplified the domestic-lethal-force narrative as an “October surprise” tied to the 2024 election, while fact-checkers and the Pentagon framed the story as misinformation about routine DOD updates [9] [3]. Civil‑liberties groups and some lawmakers focus on transparency and War Powers compliance for overseas strikes, underscoring a separate accountability angle [4] [7]. These differences reveal political incentives: election-cycle messaging often magnified worst-case readings of the DOD text, whereas institutional actors stressed legal limits and continuity [3] [2].
7. Bottom line and what reporting does and doesn’t show
Available reporting shows the September 2024 DoD revision did not legally authorize troops to use lethal force against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, according to Reuters, the Pentagon, AFP and FactCheck.org [1] [2] [5] [3]. At the same time, credible questions remain — and were raised by lawmakers and civil-liberties advocates — about whether certain overseas strikes complied with the War Powers Act or were properly disclosed to Congress [4] [7]. Available sources do not mention an official finding that President Biden personally ordered unauthorized lethal force against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil; they do, however, document disputes over legal authority for particular foreign strikes and strong concerns about secrecy [1] [4] [7].