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President Trump has rescinded Biden-era limits on counterterrorism drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional war zones, reverting to the looser set of rules he used in his first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
The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center
This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.
News
The Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border
The U.S. Supreme Court
Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States.
Asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria. Under U.S. law, an asylum seeker who “arrives in” the U.S. is entitled to apply for asylum and generally cannot be removed from the country until their asylum application is processed.
By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum.
The Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way. But the lower courts blocked the policy on grounds that it violated federal law by denying asylum to people who otherwise would have qualified for it, had they been permitted to literally put one foot over the border.
The Trump administration, however, sought to revive the policy, contending that the lower court’s ruling “deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry.” And on Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S. when they are turned away at the border, they did not “arrive in” the country. Therefore, he continued, the legal protections for asylum seekers have not kicked in.
Writing for the liberal dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Border Patrol agents speak with all immigrants at legal entry points and speaking with an agent is effectively the first step in “arriving in” the U.S.
News
Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.
Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, noting in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”
It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.
The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order seeking to establish a federal voter list, argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.
Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.
The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.
The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.
The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.
In a separate lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, who have appealed.
Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour agoWoman ambushed, violently attacked by robber in downtown Long Beach
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoWhere to watch Houston Astros vs Detroit Tigers: TV channel, start time, streaming for June 26
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours ago
I own a Turkish Restaurant in San Francisco. Turkey’s World Cup match here has changed my business.
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoAustralia advances at World Cup, how to buy Australia soccer tickets
-
Miami, FL2 hours ago2 detained after police pursuit ends with bailout, neighborhood search in NW Miami-Dade – WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoDelta flight returns to Logan after smoke scare in cockpit – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoPat Surtain II Gets More Bad News Amid Broncos’ Uncertainty
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoThe World Cup 2026 Pride Match between Egypt and Iran that Seattle hopes can ‘unite football community’