News
Trump Relaxes Limits on Counterterrorism Strikes Outside Conventional War Zones
President Trump has rescinded Biden-era limits on counterterrorism drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional war zones, reverting to the looser set of rules he used in his first term, according to officials familiar with the matter.
Under restrictions imposed by the Biden administration, U.S. military and C.I.A. drone operators generally had to obtain permission from the White House to target a suspected militant outside a conventional war zone. Now commanders in the field will again have greater latitude to decide for themselves whether to carry out a strike.
The relaxation of the rules suggests that the United States is likely to more frequently carry out airstrikes aimed at killing terrorism suspects in poorly governed places that are not deemed traditional battlefield zones, like Somalia and Yemen. It also means there may be greater risk to civilians.
The Trump administration did not formally announce the change, elements of which were reported earlier by CBS News. The report also said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had signed a directive, apparently implementing the change for the U.S. military’s Africa Command, in a meeting last month at its headquarters in Germany. Mr. Hegseth linked to the CBS report in a social media post, stating only: “Correct.”
But another person familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue, clarified that Mr. Trump had reinstated the rules he had put in place in October 2017, specifically revoking a set of rules Mr. Biden had signed in October 2022. A senior Pentagon official confirmed that account.
It is not clear when Mr. Trump made the change, but it appears to have been after an airstrike targeting ISIS militants in Somalia on Feb. 1. In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 21, Sebastian Gorka, the National Security Council’s senior director for counterterrorism, dramatically described Mr. Trump personally approving that operation. That step would no longer have been necessary after the switch.
Mr. Hegseth was in Germany on Feb. 11. There was a strike targeting ISIS militants on Feb. 16, according to U.S. Africa Command. Mr. Gorka did not mention that one in his speech, but he declared: “We have unleashed the hammers of hell on ISIS.”
Redacted versions of both the first-term Trump rules and the Biden rules became public after The New York Times filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for them. (The American Civil Liberties Union also brought a separate, parallel lawsuit under the disclosure law for the Trump-era rules.)
Under the first-term Trump system, the government laid out a set of general operating principles in which counterterrorism “direct action” — usually meaning airstrikes, but sometimes commando raids — may take place. So long as those conditions were met, operators decided for themselves whether to target particular militants. By contrast, the Biden system required White House approval for each such strike.
Moreover, the Trump system permitted targeting militants based only on their status as members of a terrorist group — meaning commanders could, if they chose to do so for policy reasons, blast away at low-level foot soldiers. By requiring the president’s personal approval, the Biden system essentially limited strikes to particular high-value targets.
Both sets of rules said there should be “near certainty” that no civilian bystanders would be killed, while allowing exceptions. A Biden-era review found that while the Trump rules for specific countries had kept the “near certainty” standard when it came to protecting civilian women and children, they often allowed a lower degree of certainty for adult civilian men.
Brian Hughes, a National Security Council spokesman, responded to a request for comment about the changes with a broad statement about untying the hands of commanders.
“President Trump will not hesitate to eliminate any terrorist who is plotting to kill Americans,” he said. “We won’t tolerate Biden-era bureaucracy preventing our warfighters from doing their job. America is back in the business of counterterrorism and killing jihadists.”
The Biden rules already allowed commanders to carry out strikes in self-defense without any need for higher-level permission. Most counterterrorism airstrikes in recent years fit in that category, like firing at Al Shabab militants in Somalia to defend partner forces of the United States, and at Houthis in Yemen to protect ships they were menacing.
And there have been fewer counterterrorism raids and drone strikes outside recognized war zones as the global terrorist threat has evolved.
During the rise of ISIS, for example, extremists flocked to Iraq and Syria — where the United States has had ground forces engaged in combat and considered a conventional war zone, and so the special rules for so-called direct action operations did not apply.
The rise of armed drone technology early in the 21st century coincided with the sprawling war that began with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and targeted killings away from conventional war zones became a central feature of the armed conflict.
Terrorist groups tended to operate from poorly governed spaces or failed states where there were few or no American troops, and no police force that was able to arrest people and suppress the threat they posed. Such places included tribal regions of Pakistan, rural Yemen, Somalia and Libya.
Drone strikes targeting terrorism suspects in such places began under President George W. Bush and soared in frequency during the first term of President Barack Obama. So did legal and political concerns about civilian casualties. The government’s deliberate killing, in 2011, of an American citizen suspected of terrorism, Anwar al-Awlaki, without a trial, intensified the debate.
In May 2013, Mr. Obama imposed the first systematic set of rules to regulate when the military or the C.I.A. could carry out such operations away from so-called hot battlefields and to constrain excessive use. His system involved a high-level-interagency review of whether a suspect posed a threat to Americans.
Mr. Trump replaced those rules in 2017 with his decentralized framework. Mr. Biden suspended that system and imposed his own version, which in many respects resembled Mr. Obama’s — and has now itself been canceled.
News
Suspect in murder of University of Washington student surrenders to police
SEATTLE (KOMO) — Seattle police have arrested a suspect in the murder of a University of Washington student.
The student, a 19-year-old transgender woman, was found dead with stab wounds in a laundry room at the Nordheim Court Apartments – off-campus housing for UW students – Sunday night.
The arrest comes a day after the Seattle Police Department (SPD) released photos of a suspect described as armed and dangerous. SPD has not yet confirmed whether the man in the images is the suspect.
According to Seattle police Det. Brian Pritchard, a 31-year-old man turned himself in to Bellevue police before being transferred to SPD detectives.
The Bellevue Police Department said the man was arrested at 10:42 p.m. on Wednesday.
The suspect was booked into the King County jail for investigation of murder.
RELATED | UW students raise security concerns after deadly stabbing, report prior break-in
Anyone with more information is asked to call the SPD violent crimes tip line at 206-233-5000. Anonymous tips are welcome.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION (17)
This story is developing.
News
South Carolina Governor Plans Special Session to Redraw House Maps
Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina, a Republican, plans to call the state legislature back for a special session that will be focused on redrawing the state’s congressional maps, lawmakers said on Wednesday evening. The effort could eliminate the state’s sole Democratic district, held by Representative James E. Clyburn.
Mr. McMaster’s decision came one day after five Republican state senators voted with Democrats to block a resolution that would have brought the legislature back to the State Capitol to consider redistricting.
That vote had seemed to close the door on the matter. Republican lawmakers had considered an agreement to extend their session only when it became clear that Mr. McMaster would not immediately call a special session himself.
But Mr. McMaster, who cannot seek re-election because of term limits, now appears willing to thrust South Carolina into the redistricting battles that have reached fever intensity, particularly in the South, ever since the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Voting Rights Act last month.
President Trump has been clear about his wish for a G.O.P. sweep of all seven of South Carolina’s congressional districts, pressing Republican officials to draw new district maps before the midterm elections.
Mr. McMaster’s office declined to comment on Wednesday. Recently, he had said that he would let the Republican-controlled General Assembly decide the matter.
If Mr. McMaster calls the special session, lawmakers would face a time crunch. South Carolina’s primaries are on June 9, but early voting begins in two weeks, so Republicans would have to pass new maps before May 26.
The South Carolina House has proposed moving the congressional primaries to August to accommodate new maps.
There are also legal hurdles to consider. Hundreds of overseas voters have already cast ballots, which could prompt lawsuits if their votes are discarded to account for a change of date in congressional elections.
It is still unclear if new maps would pass in a special session, although Republicans control the legislature and would need only a simple majority to approve them.
Davey Hiott, the Republican leader of the South Carolina House, told reporters that his chamber was ready to get things rolling on Friday morning and vote on a map as quickly as possible, ideally next week.
Shane Massey, the Republican leader of the State Senate, who drew national attention for his impassioned speech against redistricting, was much more apprehensive about moving fast. He said public input was important and continued to voice opposition to the redistricting effort.
“I haven’t heard anything that alleviates the concerns, not just for me but for other people that I’ve been talking to,” Mr. Massey said. “The concerns are there. If anything, they’re only heightened.”
He also noted that there were other pressing matters for the legislature to consider in the special session, such as finishing the budget.
Unlike their counterparts in states like Tennessee, Alabama and Louisiana, some South Carolina Republicans have been much more lukewarm about the idea of mid-decade redistricting, mostly because they are skeptical that a new map would guarantee one more Republican-leaning congressional district. Instead, they fear that Democrats could be competitive in the newly created districts as Republican strength in some current districts is diluted.
Mr. Massey said in the chamber on Tuesday that changing the maps was “extremely risky” and could allow Democrats to pick up a seat.
“Very candidly, you’re going to motivate Black turnout, and there will be repercussions from that,” including on local races, he said in that speech.
Mr. Massey and Mr. Hiott did agree that the redistricting debates were about to get even messier in Columbia, the capital.
“It’ll be like nothing we’ve ever seen,” Mr. Hiott said. “It’ll be long. It’ll be tedious. At times, hopefully, it’ll be respectful.”
He laughed when asked what he made of the governor’s change of heart on redistricting, adding, “I never thought it was out of the realm of possibility.”
Mr. Massey said Mr. McMaster had argued in a private meeting that calling the legislature back didn’t mean he was telling them what to do.
“My position on that is, if you’re calling us back, you’re telling everybody what you want us to do,” Mr. Massey said.
Mr. Massey described their redistricting dilemma as “a box within a box,” a “maze,” something he didn’t know how to escape. Sooner or later, he added, they would have to vote on new maps.
The debate over redistricting comes in the waning weeks of a crowded Republican primary battle for governor. All of the leading candidates have expressed their support for redistricting to increase Republicans’ chances of retaining control of Congress. Some of the candidates, including Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Alan Wilson, the state attorney general, have showed up at committee hearings, urging lawmakers to move ahead.
Mr. Trump has not yet endorsed anyone in the governor’s race.
News
Denise Powell wins Democratic primary for Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district
Denise Powell, candidate for the Democratic nomination to the House of Representatives in Nebraska’s second district, right, hugs pollster Madeline Conway during an election night watch party Wednesday in Omaha, Neb.
Rebecca S. Gratz/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Rebecca S. Gratz/AP
Political organizer Denise Powell has defeated State Sen. John Cavanaugh to win the Democratic primary in the race for Nebraska’s second congressional district, according to a race call by the Associated Press on Wednesday.
With the race too close to call as polls closed Tuesday night, Powell ultimately defeated Cavanaugh by about 2 percentage points with 89 percent of votes counted so far, according to estimates from the AP Wednesday evening. That margin could change as the remaining ballots in the race are counted.
Powell will go on to face the Republican nominee Brinker Harding who is endorsed by President Trump.
The race for the state’s second congressional district is closely watched because the ultimate winner could help decide which party controls the narrowly divided U.S. House after this year’s midterm elections.
The Democratic primary attracted more than $5.6 million in outside ad spending, according to a review of Federal Election Commission filings by Nebraska Public Media.
The second district, which includes the Omaha area, is known as the “blue dot” because it was the lone Nebraska district to vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 and Joe Biden in 2020. It is currently represented by Republican Don Bacon, who is retiring. Democrats see the seat as a prime pickup opportunity.

Powell’s win helps avoid a scenario that some Nebraska Democrats had been dreading. Had Cavanaugh won, the state’s Republican governor would have been able to appoint a replacement to finish his term, which ends in 2028.
Republicans already hold a supermajority in the Nebraska legislature, but some Democrats worried that losing a seat in a reliable district would have helped the GOP change how the state awards its electoral votes for president.
Nebraska is one of two states, the other being Maine, that does not use a winner-take-all approach when awarding electoral votes. Rather, it awards an Electoral College vote to the winning presidential candidate in each individual congressional district. In a close race, many Democrats fear the loss of the blue dot could prove pivotal.
-
Business5 minutes agoIn Qatar, Energy Sector Damage Is Severe, and the Way Back Will Be Long
-
Science11 minutes agoLithuania’s Peat Bogs Could Help the Climate and Defend the Border, Too
-
Health17 minutes agoWill Her Daughter Be Safe at Pali High as It Rebuilds From LA Wildfires?
-
Culture29 minutes agoJudith Barnard, of Best-Selling ‘Judith Michael’ Fame, Dies at 94
-
Lifestyle35 minutes agoThe Family Branding of Sean Duffy’s Road Trip Reality Show
-
Education41 minutes agoUniversity of Chicago Makes Tuition Free for Families Making Under $250,000
-
Technology47 minutes agoUse this map to find the data centers in your backyard
-
World53 minutes agoNon-Jewish professor says he was fired for calling out Hamas supporters in online post