March, 16 2010, 05:43pm EDT
ACLU Seeks Information On Predator Drone Program
Group Files Lawsuit For Data On Targeted Killings Of Suspected Terrorists And Civilian Casualties
NEW YORK
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today demanding that the
government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to
conduct targeted killings overseas. In particular, the lawsuit asks for
information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be
authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic
information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using
armed drones to conduct targeted killings.
"The public has a right to know
whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are
consistent with international law and with the country's interests and
values," said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National
Security Project. "The Obama administration should disclose basic
information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and
the civilian casualty toll thus far."
The CIA and the military have used
unmanned drones to target and kill individuals not only in Afghanistan
and Iraq but also in Pakistan and, in at least one case in 2002, Yemen.
The technology allows U.S. personnel to observe targeted individuals in
real time and launch missiles intended to kill them from control centers
located thousands of miles away. Recent reports, including public
statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that
U.S. citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted
and killed with drones.
The ACLU made an initial FOIA request
for information on the drone program in January. Today's lawsuit
against the Defense Department, the State Department and the Justice
Department seeks to enforce that request. None of the three agencies
have provided any documents in response to the request, nor have they
given any reason for withholding documents. The CIA answered the ACLU's
request by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any relevant
documents. The CIA is not a defendant in today's lawsuit because the
ACLU will first appeal the CIA's non-response to the Agency Release
Panel.
"The government's use of drones to
conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions - not only legal
questions, but policy and moral questions as well," said Jameel Jaffer,
Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "These kinds of
questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved
secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may
legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive
information about military strategy, it should disclose basic
information about the scope of the drone program, the legal basis for
the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the
program."
The ACLU's lawsuit seeks, in addition
to information about the legal basis for the drone program, information
about how the program is overseen and data regarding the number of
civilians and non-civilians killed in the strikes. Estimates of civilian
casualties provided by anonymous government officials quoted in the
press and by various non-governmental analysts differ dramatically, from
the dozens to the hundreds, giving an incomplete and inconsistent
picture of the human cost of the program.
Attorneys on the case are Manes,
Jaffer and Ben Wizner of the ACLU National Security Project and Arthur
B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital.
The ACLU's complaint can be found
here: www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-doj-et-al-complaint
The ACLU's FOIA request can be found
here: www.aclu.org/national-security/predator-drone-foia-request
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
'Huge Win': Judge Bars Trump DOJ From Searching Devices of Washington Post Journalist
One press freedom group called the raid on Hannah Natanson's home last month a "warning shot to journalists and whistleblowers nationwide."
Feb 25, 2026
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the US Justice Department cannot search the devices it seized from Hannah Natanson, a Washington Post journalist whose home was raided by the FBI earlier this year as part of an investigation into a government contractor.
William Porter, magistrate judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia's Arlington Division, wrote in his 22-page decision that the Trump administration's "failure to identify and analyze" the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) in its application for a search warrant in the case "has seriously undermined the court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures in this proceeding."
The PPA shields journalists from being forced to turn over work materials to law enforcement. During the raid on Natanson's home, FBI agents reportedly seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, and other devices.
"Many government lawyers had multiple opportunities to identify the PPA as controlling authority and to include an analysis of it in the warrant application," Porter wrote. "None of them did."
Porter added that he hopes "this search was conducted—as the government contends—to gather evidence of a crime in a single case, not to collect information about confidential sources from a reporter who has published articles critical of the administration."
Runa Sandvik, founder of a startup that works to protect journalists' digital security, called the ruling a "huge win for Hannah Natanson and the Washington Post."
The Post noted in its reporting on the decision that federal prosecutors "acknowledged that only a small portion of the information on the devices seized from Natanson would be relevant to the case against" Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a government contractor who was indicted last month on charges of illegally obtaining and sharing classified materials.
Federal prosecutors "asked Porter to allow a government filter team to search through the devices for relevant information," and the team "would then hand over the responsive information to prosecutors," the Post reported.
Porter rejected that proposal in his ruling, citing "documented reporting on government leak investigations and the government’s well-chronicled efforts to stop them."
"Allowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product—most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources—is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” Porter wrote. “The concern that a filter team may err by neglect, by malice, or by honest difference of opinion is heightened where its institutional interests are so directly at odds with the press freedom values at stake.”
Press freedom organizations have condemned the Trump administration's raid on Natanson's home and seizure of her work devices as an alarming escalation in a broader assault on journalism.
Earlier this month, the Freedom of the Press Foundation filed a complaint against Gordon Kromberg, the federal prosecutor who signed the search warrant application targeting Natanson.
“Kromberg and the government omitted a federal law that should have prohibited the raid of Hannah Natanson’s home when applying for a search warrant," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for FPF, said in a statement, referring to the Privacy Protection Act. "That choice now threatens to expose Natanson’s sources and cripple her ability to report, while also sending a warning shot to journalists and whistleblowers nationwide."
“Disciplinary bodies cannot look the other way and ignore misconduct that threatens the First Amendment, particularly from an administration with a long history of misleading judges and everyone else," Stern added. "When prosecutors abuse their power to facilitate efforts to silence reporting and intimidate news sources, disciplinary authorities must hold them accountable and impose real consequences.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watched by Millions, 'People's State of the Union' Counters Unhinged Trump
"We live in a country where we have one reality for everyday people and another for the rich and the well-connected and the well-protected," said Rep. Summer Lee.
Feb 25, 2026
As President Donald Trump prepared to deliver his State of the Union address on Tuesday to applause from sycophantic Republicans, dozens of Democratic lawmakers, progressive advocates, and people impacted by White House policies gathered on the National Mall to present an alternative assessment of the country's trajectory.
"We live in a country where we have one reality for everyday people and another for the rich and the well-connected and the well-protected," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), preempting Trump's claim of a "golden age of America" despite rising costs, deepening inequality, and staggering corruption.
While many Democratic lawmakers opted to attend Trump's speech, saying they did not want the president to deliver his remarks to a House of Representatives full of Republicans, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told the crowd gathered blocks from the US Capitol that "these are not normal times, and Democrats have to stop behaving normally."
Watch the full counter-rally, which organizers said millions watched online:
Among those who joined Democratic lawmakers at the People's State of the Union were Epstein survivors and people harmed by the Trump administration's lawless assault on immigrants, assault on the social safety net, and other policies.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said during his remarks at Tuesday's rally that "I’m not in the Capitol building tonight because I have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen."
"For an hour or two or three or four, a man who's made $4 billion off of being president is going to lecture you, the American people, about how good you have it," said Casar. "A man who is building himself a golden ballroom is going to tell you that if you're struggling to get by, that's your fault, because he's killing it."
"Everyone but Donald Trump's rich friends knows that it's a disaster," Casar added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Disgusting': Republicans Applaud as Trump Brags About Taking Food Aid From Millions
"His Big Ugly Bill ripped food away from hungry moms, kids, and seniors to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," said one House Democrat.
Feb 25, 2026
US President Donald Trump received a standing ovation from Republican lawmakers and administration officials Tuesday night when he bragged during his State of the Union address about taking nutrition assistance from millions, which he euphemistically characterized as lifting people off food stamps.
"In one year, we have lifted 2.4 million Americans—a record—off of food stamps," Trump said during his nearly two-hour speech.
The Republican reconciliation package that Trump signed into law last summer included $187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over a 10-year period, the largest cuts to the program in US history.
Trump: "In one year, we have lifted 2.4 million Americans -- a record -- off of food stamps" (In other words, Republicans cut food stamps) pic.twitter.com/19EoNEUmPF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 25, 2026
The Republican law includes reductions in federal nutrition funding for states—which administer SNAP—as well as expanded work requirements, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would strip nutrition benefits from "roughly 2.4 million people in an average month" over the next decade.
As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted in a recent analysis, changes enacted by the Trump-GOP law mean that "for the first time in the 50-year history of the modern SNAP program, the federal government will no longer ensure that the lowest-income people, including children, older adults, veterans, and people with disabilities, in every state have access to the food assistance they need because states that refuse to pay the cost share could see the program end."
Shortly after Trump signed the Republican megabill into law, his administration canceled an annual US Department of Agriculture survey aimed at measuring food insecurity, undercutting efforts to track the impact of the unprecedented SNAP cuts. The USDA's final reports estimated that nearly 48 million people in the US faced food insecurity in 2024—including nearly one in five households with children.
"Trump says he 'lifted' millions off food stamps," Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) wrote in response to the president's State of the Union remarks. "But what he really means is his Big Ugly Bill ripped food away from hungry moms, kids, and seniors to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The lies are blatant and disgusting."
Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) denounced her Republican colleagues for their celebratory response to Trump's boast.
"They're applauding ripping food out of people’s mouths to fund their tax cuts for billionaires," McBride wrote on social media.
USDA data released ahead of Trump's speech shows that around 696,000 fewer people received SNAP benefits in November 2025 compared to the previous month.
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst on the food assistance team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that "people haven’t been dropping off SNAP because they no longer need help."
"Economic conditions haven’t improved and groceries haven’t gotten more affordable," Bergh added. "They're losing basic food assistance because of policy choices. Allowing this trend to continue is also a policy choice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular