Fact check: How did the Obama administration's drone strike policy differ from that of the Bush and Trump administrations?

1. Summary of the results

The Obama administration's drone strike policy differed from that of the Bush and Trump administrations in several key aspects, including transparency and accountability ^{[1] [2]}. The Obama administration increased the use of drones, with a total of 563 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen during his two terms ^[3], and also had a more centralized and high-level approval process for drone strikes ^{[2] [4]}. In contrast, the Trump administration revoked the requirement to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes outside of war zones ^[1], and loosened the approval process for drone strikes ^{[2] [4]}. The Obama administration's policy was also criticized for not being transparent enough and for using looser standards than international human rights law ^[5]. Some key points to note include:

• The Obama administration's use of drones increased significantly compared to the Bush administration ^[3]
• The Trump administration's reversal of the requirement to publish civilian casualties was seen as a step backwards on transparency and accountability ^[1]
• The Obama administration's drone strike policy was a key feature of its foreign policy, with nearly 400 drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen since 2008 ^[6]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Some missing context in the original statement includes the geopolitical context in which the drone strike policies were implemented, as well as the impact on civilian populations ^[7]. Additionally, the original statement does not mention the role of the CIA versus the military in carrying out drone strikes ^[6]. Alternative viewpoints include the perspective of human rights groups, who have criticized the Obama administration's drone strike policy for not being transparent enough and for using looser standards than international human rights law ^[5]. Other viewpoints include:

• The perspective of lawmakers, who have criticized the Trump administration's reversal of the requirement to publish civilian casualties ^[1]
• The perspective of international organizations, who have raised concerns about the use of drones in counterterrorism operations (not mentioned in the provided sources)
• The historical context of the drone strike policies, including the events leading up to their implementation (not mentioned in the provided sources)

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be biased towards a particular perspective on the drone strike policies, as it does not provide a comprehensive overview of the different viewpoints on the issue ^{[1] [2]}. Additionally, the statement may be misleading in its implication that the Obama administration's drone strike policy was more transparent and accountable than the Trump administration's policy, when in fact the Obama administration's policy was also criticized for not being transparent enough ^[5]. Some potential beneficiaries of this framing include:

• The Obama administration, which may be portrayed as more transparent and accountable than the Trump administration ^{[1] [2]}
• Human rights groups, who may be seen as critics of the Obama administration's drone strike policy ^[5]
• The Trump administration, which may be portrayed as less transparent and accountable than the Obama administration ^[1]