Member Essays, Articles, Opinions

By Dan Maurer Originally published by Just Security here The following hypothetical legal memorandum imagines what the General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Defense would advise the Secretary of Defense immediately following the SecDef’s remarks on March 13, 2026, in which he appeared to suggest that U.S. forces would deny “quarter” to Iranian combatants during Operation Epic Fury. The memorandum presumes that Secretary Hegseth did not know what “no quarter” means under

By Eugene R. Fidell , Steven J. Lepper and William D. Baumgartner Originally published by JustSecurity here Now in its second year, the Trump administration continues to set new records for legal controversy, much of which surrounds the president. Controversy has also swirled around Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, and Kristi Noem, who was recently fired as Secretary of Homeland Security. The three have something in common: they are all among those official positions

By Daniel Maurer , Steven J. Lepper , Eugene R. Fidell , Alberto J. Mora and Franklin D. Rosenblatt Originally published here This “operational legal review” is the third in a series of essays examining the legal basis for current or potential future U.S. military operations. This is not an official legal review ; however, the format and analysis are representative of the legal advice that judge advocates (uniformed lawyers) provide commanders when advising on the lawfulness

By Steven Lepper Origally published here This memorandum is the second in a series of essays examining the legal basis for current or potential U.S. military operations or other uses of the military. This is not an official legal memorandum; however, the format and analysis are representative of the legal advice that would be rendered in the situation described. The content of this review is not based on any actual legal review or on any classified information; all facts are

Summary: This statement reviews media reports that U.S. forces conducted strikes on a narcotrafficking vessel and then conducted a second strike on surviving individuals in the water. It explains that, if accurate, such actions would violate both international humanitarian law and U.S. criminal law by targeting persons rendered unable to fight ("hors de combat"). It summarizes applicable Geneva Conventions rules, the Hague prohibition on “no quarter” orders, and relevant U.S.

By Dan Maurer Originally published here This “operational legal review” is first in a series of essays examining the legal basis for current or potential U.S. military operations.  This is not an official legal review ; however, the format and analysis are representative of the legal advice that judge advocates (uniformed lawyers) provide military commanders when advising on the legality of specific uses of military forces. The content of this review is not based on any actua