A President’s Authority to Use Lethal Force

Published on LinkedIn: February 20, 2026

Presidential power over life and death is often described as absolute once national security is invoked.

In constitutional law, it has never worked that way.

The authority to use lethal force does not arise from office alone. It operates within a layered legal framework that includes constitutional structure, statutory authorization, and longstanding legal constraints governing armed conflict and due process.

Congress plays a central role in defining when and how military force may be used. That role is not ceremonial. It reflects the constitutional judgment that decisions of such gravity should not rest on unilateral executive discretion. Courts, in turn, have emphasized that executive power does not exist in a legal vacuum simply because foreign nationals are involved.

Even in counterterrorism contexts, the use of lethal force is governed by rules that limit who may be targeted, under what circumstances, and in which locations. Legal justification depends on context, authorization, and adherence to governing standards — not on presidential designation alone.

These constraints serve an important function. They prevent the personalization of state violence and preserve accountability within a system that distributes responsibility across institutions. When force is used outside those boundaries, it carries legal, political, and international consequences.

The constitutional design is deliberate. The power to use force is real and sometimes necessary — but it is exercised under law, not as a matter of personal will.