By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 22, 2026

This is where the series gets uncomfortable.

Up to this point, we have been talking about structure. Authority. Process. Timing. Legitimacy.

Now we get to outcomes that do not sit neatly inside those frameworks.

Because at some point, executive power is not just about decisions. It is about life and death.

Start with the baseline

The United States government has long maintained the authority to use lethal force under certain conditions.

Internationally, this has included:

  • military operations
  • targeted strikes against designated threats
  • actions justified under self-defense frameworks

Domestically, use of force is governed by:

  • constitutional standards
  • statutory authority
  • departmental policy
  • judicial review after the fact

None of this is new.

What matters is how those authorities are used, how often, and under what conditions.

The 2020 precedent

In January 2020, the United States conducted a drone strike in Baghdad that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

The strike was justified by the administration as a response to imminent threats.

It was also widely debated in legal and academic circles, with questions raised about:

  • the definition of “imminent threat”
  • the scope of executive authority
  • compliance with international law

A United Nations special rapporteur later concluded that the strike was likely unlawful absent sufficient evidence of immediate danger (Callamard, 2020).

This event matters because it established a modern precedent:

The executive branch demonstrated willingness to use targeted lethal force against a senior state actor outside a formally declared war.

Expansion and normalization

Once a precedent exists, it becomes part of the available toolkit.

Subsequent actions are interpreted in light of prior ones.

If a particular use of force is carried out and absorbed without structural change, it becomes easier to justify similar actions later.

This is how normalization works.

Not through a single decision, but through repeated acceptance.

Domestic enforcement and lethal outcomes

Inside the United States, lethal force is not framed in the same way. It occurs through enforcement actions rather than military operations.

However, the underlying structure still involves:

  • executive authority
  • discretionary decision-making
  • post-event accountability

Recent incidents involving federal agents have raised questions about:

  • use of force standards
  • accuracy of threat assessments
  • consistency of accountability

In several cases, available evidence has conflicted with initial official explanations. These disputes are being addressed through investigations, legal challenges, and public scrutiny.

The key point is not that every use of force is unlawful.

The key point is that when lethal force becomes contested, the system is forced to justify itself after the fact.

The timing problem returns

This connects directly to what we discussed in the previous essays.

  • action happens immediately
  • accountability happens later

In cases involving lethal force, that timing gap cannot be reversed.

There is no corrective mechanism that restores the prior state.

That raises the stakes of initial decisions.

Legal frameworks under strain

Both domestic and international legal frameworks rely on standards such as:

  • necessity
  • proportionality
  • imminence

These standards are not self-enforcing.

They are interpreted by:

  • executive officials at the moment of decision
  • courts after the fact
  • external observers over time

When interpretations differ, the result is dispute.

When disputes accumulate, the framework itself comes under pressure.

Tradeoffs in executive use of force

The use of lethal force offers clear advantages:

  • immediate neutralization of perceived threats
  • demonstration of executive capability
  • rapid response in dynamic environments

It also introduces significant risks:

  • misidentification or error
  • escalation
  • legal and diplomatic consequences
  • erosion of constraints

These tradeoffs are not theoretical. They are inherent.

What this means

This is not an argument about whether force should ever be used.

States use force. That is part of how they operate.

The issue is how force is authorized, how it is applied, and how it is reviewed.

Under the Trump presidency, when combined with:

  • emphasis on speed
  • expanded executive discretion
  • contested accountability mechanisms

the use of lethal force becomes part of a broader pattern.

Not isolated events, but actions embedded in a system that prioritizes rapid decision-making and centralized authority.

The system under stress

When lethal force is used in ways that are widely accepted, the system absorbs it.

When it is used in ways that are contested, the system is tested.

That test is not only legal. It is institutional and public.

  • Do the courts intervene?
  • Does Congress respond?
  • Does the public accept the justification?

Those responses determine whether the boundaries of executive authority hold or shift.

Where this leaves us

This is the edge of the system.

Not the theoretical edge. The real one.

Where authority meets consequence.

Where timing cannot be reversed.

Where accountability arrives after the fact.

If the earlier essays described how the system works, this is what happens when it is pushed into its most consequential domain.

From here, the question is not only how power is used.

It is how far the system allows it to go before it pushes back.

If this work helps you understand what’s happening, help me keep it going: https://www.patreon.com/cw/WPSNews

For more from Cliff Potts, see https://cliffpotts.org

If you are interested in resisting authoritarian rule and understanding the systems behind it, see https://endfascism.xyz

References

Callamard, A. (2020). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. United Nations Human Rights Council.

Congressional Research Service. (2021). Use of force and executive authority. U.S. Congress.

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.