Fact check: Did Obama expand national secuity—authorizing drone strikes on U.S. citizens abroad, prosecuting whistleblowers, and defending NSA surveillance.

1. Summary of the results

The analyses strongly support the claim that Obama expanded national security powers across all three areas mentioned.

Drone strikes on U.S. citizens abroad were indeed authorized under Obama's administration. The sources confirm that Obama's administration conducted targeted killings by drone, including against U.S. citizens such as Anwar al-Awlaki and his son Abdulrahman ^[1]. The ACLU criticized the administration's response to civilian casualties and called for greater transparency regarding these operations ^[2]. Obama's presidency saw significant growth in the "drone wars" campaign, with sources noting his initial silence on the controversial program ^[3].

Prosecuting whistleblowers reached unprecedented levels under Obama. The administration prosecuted more national security leakers than all other presidencies combined, securing 526 months of prison time for national security leakers—a dramatic increase from previous administrations ^[4]. Specifically, Obama's administration charged six government employees with violating the 1917 Espionage Act, exceeding the total of all previous administrations combined ^[5]. These prosecutions created a chilling effect on interactions between journalists and federal employees ^[5].

NSA surveillance was actively defended by Obama, who stated that the phone snooping program helps prevent terrorist attacks and noted that Congress had been briefed on these activities ^[6]. Most significantly, Obama expanded surveillance powers through new rules under Executive Order 12333, allowing the NSA to share raw streams of communications with domestic agencies, potentially increasing privacy violation risks for innocent people ^[7].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks important nuance about Obama's complex legacy on these issues. While Obama did expand national security powers, he also implemented some reforms and protections in other areas.

• Surveillance reforms: Obama announced reforms for the NSA's data-collection program, including increased transparency and oversight measures ^[8], showing an attempt to balance security with civil liberties concerns.
• Selective whistleblower protection: Although Obama aggressively prosecuted national security whistleblowers, his administration strengthened whistleblower protections in corporate and financial sectors ^[9], indicating a more nuanced approach than blanket suppression.
• Historical context: The expansion occurred during a period when presidents traditionally prioritize national security over individual rights during times of crisis ^[1], suggesting these actions weren't unprecedented in their motivation, though they were in their scale.

Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU would benefit from highlighting Obama's expansion of these powers to maintain public scrutiny of government overreach. National security agencies and defense contractors would benefit from public acceptance of expanded surveillance and drone programs, as these provide increased funding and operational authority.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement, while factually accurate, presents a one-sided view that omits Obama's simultaneous efforts at reform and oversight. The framing suggests purely authoritarian expansion without acknowledging the complex balance Obama attempted to strike between security and civil liberties.

The statement also lacks the crucial context that Obama's administration later expressed concerns about the precedent these expansions might set. Sources indicate worry that the Trump administration could build upon Obama's precedent of prosecuting national security whistleblowers to further suppress dissent ^[9].

The phrasing implies intentional malice rather than acknowledging the post-9/11 security environment that influenced these decisions. While the factual claims are supported by evidence, the presentation lacks the nuanced context that would provide a more complete understanding of Obama's national security legacy.