United States

Leader

Emerging leader

Engaged

Uncommitted

Regressive

Emerging leader

1. National Policy

2. Civilian Harm Tracking

3. Investigations

4. Public Reporting & Transparency

5. Post-Harm Response

Country summary

Current Civilian Protection Monitor analysis covers policies and practices of this country up to February 1, 2025. The analysis below is a small sample of the CPM analysis; for the full version, go to the country report

In recent years, the US has taken notable steps to reduce civilian harm from its military operations. The Department of Defense has introduced expansive policy frameworks that set clear policies for all aspects of CHMR, including tracking and investigation of, and responding to harm. It has further allocated considerable financial and human resources to CHMR activities. Challenges remain in ensuring that these policies are applied consistently and despite having a dedicated budget for ex gratia payments, few such payments have been made in recent years. Further, the US can improve its transparency on civilian harm. Current reporting on civilian harm often lacks key details, for instance on methods of investigation and on responses to reported harm, limiting a clear external understanding of how the DoD assesses and addresses civilian harm. The US has made substantial progress in creating policies and structures aimed at protecting civilians, but needs to ensure adequate implementation. There is further the question how current policy and practice may be affected by a change in government as of January 2025.

1. National policy

Category description: The national policy or system of policies, strategies, and guidance adopted by the executive branch of government and its organs (including security institutions) that establishes clear authorities, responsibilities, and guidance for the prevention, mitigation, and response to civilian harm. A national policy framework, when combined with effective implementation of its provisions and formalised engagement with civil society actors can be helpful for communicating a government’s commitment to mitigate harm to civilians.

The national policy or system of policies, strategies, and guidance adopted by the executive branch of government and its organs (including security institutions) that establishes clear authorities, responsibilities, and guidance for the prevention, mitigation, and response to civilian harm. A national policy framework, when combined with effective implementation of its provisions and formalised engagement with civil society actors can be helpful for communicating a government’s commitment to mitigate harm to civilians.

Recommendations

Clarify conditional language in policies.
Enhance accountability mechanisms for policy implementation.
Expand and optimise civilian harm ex gratia funding.

1.1 National policy framework

Indicator description: The government has adopted a comprehensive national policy framework on mitigating and responding to civilian harm resulting from its own military operations, including clear definitions of key terminology such as ‘civilian harm’.

1.2 Clear policy language

Indicator description: The policy contains clear and actionable language and commitment to civilian harm mitigation and response.

1.3 Clear implementation guidance

Indicator description: Policy and implementation guidance is clear and includes defined roles and responsibilities.

1.4 Budget and resources

Indicator description: Funding, personnel and time are given toward implementation of CHMR policies.

2. Civilian harm tracking

Category description: An internal (military or security force) process by which an armed actor gathers and analyses data about civilian harm incidents in order to better prevent, mitigate, and address harm in the future.

The US has implemented some degree of civilian harm tracking in most of its military operations since 2011. The DoD is currently working on further improvements to tracking and analysis mechanisms, for instance through plans to standardise civilian harm-related data collection, assessments, and investigations. This includes creating a centralised database to track harm and identify trends, which would be used to inform both current operations and broader organisational learning. However, development of this database is still in progress, and without interim solutions, there is a risk that ongoing cases may be overlooked. While the DoD aims to implement more uniform standards, the quality of current tracking of and reporting on civilian harm varies significantly across individual Combatant Commands.

Recommendations

Publicly define minimum standards for civilian harm assessment and tracking criteria.
Improve civilian harm reporting mechanisms.
Use tracking mechanisms for operational learning.

2.1 Tracking mechanism

Indicator description: The government has or plans for the capabilities, resources, personnel, and systems needed to track civilian harm, i.e., to systematically collect and analyse information on harm.

2.2 Tracking to reduce harm through analysis

Indicator description: The tracking mechanism is effectively designed to produce meaningful analysis and insights that are used by military leaders to change tactics or procedures. The express and stated purpose of the tracking mechanism in policy and practice is to prevent, mitigate, and address harm and promote institutional and operational learning.

2.3 Coordination with investigation mechanisms

Indicator description: Tracking mechanisms interact effectively with civilian harm investigations.

2.4 Data management

Indicator description: Tracking mechanisms have reliable access to accurate information and sufficiently detailed records about military operations (e.g., troop movements, airstrikes, incident reports). Incidents and analyses are properly archived and retrievable years later.

3. Investigations

Category description: Formal inquiries (often in the form of administrative or criminal investigations) that can be used to elucidate facts, to understand the cause of harm, to identify relevant state and/or individual responsibilities, to facilitate the appropriate response and/or remedy, and even to exonerate.

Recommendations

Update civilian harm reporting mechanisms to reflect the information environment.
Standardise and institutionalise the investigation methodology.
Increase transparency in public reporting.
More closely align investigative procedures and outcomes with response mechanisms.

3.1 Investigates all credible reports

Indicator description: Promptly investigates all credible reports of civilian harm, whether or not it is immediately clear that a violation of international law has occurred. Obtains relevant information from all internal, and, to the extent feasible, all external sources.

3.2 Conducts witness interviews and site visits

Indicator description: Investigating officers conduct site visits and/or conduct witness interviews or provide reasons why doing so is infeasible. If this is infeasible, there is clarity on how evidentiary gaps will be addressed.

3.3 Reports of investigation

Indicator description: Reports of investigations include a description of the process followed, the evidence consulted and included (including witness statements), information about its factual and legal findings, and recommendations for preventing a recurrence of civilian harm.

3.4 Interaction with response mechanisms

Indicator description: Investigations connect meaningfully to response mechanisms. Civilians who report incidents are informed of the possible response they can expect from the state. Acknowledgements of harm following the conclusion of an investigation address the next steps in terms of amends.

3.5 Criminal investigations

Indicator description: Incidents of a suspected criminal nature are referred to an independent, impartial investigative authority for investigating criminal violations.

4. Public reporting & transparency

Systems and procedures to ensure that the public and institutions of public oversight are made sufficiently aware of civilian harm, and to protect the right of victims to pursue remedy. Information may be limited or redacted due to privacy concerns for affected civilians, to safeguard other ongoing investigations or for national security reasons, but these reasons should be subject to review.

The DoD demonstrates efforts to disclose information about civilian harm, but the level of transparency warrants improvement. Combatant Commands regularly publish reports on strikes, but the level of detail and the consistency of reporting varies across individual commands. There are additional transparency gaps related to the processes, criteria, and outcomes of investigations. While some information, such as mitigation tactics and basic assessments, is made available, key details – such as the determination of civilian status, explanations of credibility assessments, or the provision of amends – are often excluded. Overall, this impedes external assessments of the effectiveness of US civilian harm mitigation practices.

Recommendations

Further standardise reporting.
Make civilian harm reporting more comprehensive.
Increase transparency on civilian harm assessments and investigations.
Invest in independent oversight mechanisms.
Prepare transparency policies for high-intensity conflict.

4.1 Discloses time and location of operations

Indicator description: Makes public information, to include time and location, of operations including airstrikes, except in circumstances when doing so would place civilians or security personnel at risk.

4.2 Civilian harm reporting

Indicator description: Regularly issues and disseminates reports on civilian harm resulting from military operations that includes an estimate of casualties, the source of harm, the type of harm experienced, and the location of the incident(s) and any reasons for discrepancies with estimates or accounts from other sources such as NGOs or the media.

4.3 Public disclosure of process and records

Indicator description: Releases information about mitigation tactics, investigative processes and records to the public whenever possible. Shares criteria used for the ‘credibility’ assessment and investigation of harm allegations.

5. Post-harm response

Category description: Efforts to acknowledge and express condolence for harm, to include offers of monetary and non-monetary forms of post-harm assistance.

The US government has established a formal process to address civilian harm resulting from military operations, including both monetary and non-monetary forms of amends. Recent policies have introduced new regulations, further systematising post-harm response practices. However, while recent policy frameworks mandate acknowledgment of harm at individual and community levels, there is no formal policy or guidance for issuing apologies. The exclusion of compensation claims by civilians deemed ‘unfriendly’ to the US is problematic and raises the concern that post-harm response practices may be implemented inconsistently across different conflict theatres. Notably, the process for civilian harm amends has evolved over the last few years and recent policies show a clear commitment to amending civilian harm caused by US operations.

Recommendations

Strengthen reporting and transparency mechanisms.
Increase funding for civilian harm responses.
Remove legal and strategic restrictions on amends.
Clarify the amends policies for covert operations.

5.1 Process for amends

Indicator description: The government implements a functional, timely, and adequately resourced process to receive and process requests and proactively provides monetary and non-monetary amends for harm caused by operations.

5.2 Acknowledgement

Indicator description: The government publicly acknowledges responsibility for harm.

5.3 Comprehensive, victim-centred condolence

Indicator description: Policies governing the offer and provision of condolences should be broadly defined, culturally appropriate and sensitive to local needs as defined by those affected.

Resources

Government

USDP, “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response”, n.d. [Link]

Legal Information Institute “Foreign Claims Act: 10 U.S. Code § 2734 - Property Loss; Personal Injury or Death: Incident to Noncombat Activities of the Armed Forces; Foreign Countries,” [Link]
“American Service-Members’ Protection Act,” 2003 [Link]
US Department of Defense. “Law of War Manual,” June 2015 (Updated July 2023). [Link]
The White House. “Executive Order - United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike,” July 1, 2016. [Link]
2018 National Defense Authorization Act, section 1057 [Link]
2019 National Defense Authorization Act, section 1057 [Link]
The White House. “Executive Order on Revocation of Reporting Requirement – the White House,” March 6, 2019. [Link]
US Under Secretary of Defense. “Interim regulations for condolence and sympathy payments to friendly for injury or loss that is incident to military operations,” June 22, 2020. [Link]
Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas — UNODA. “The Political Declaration,” 2022. [Link]
The White House. “Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) Governing Direct Action in Counterterrorism Operations Outside Areas of Active Hostilities,” 2022. [link] US Department of Defense. “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR- AP),” August 25, 2022. [Link]
US Department of Defense. “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR- AP),” August 25, 2022. [Link]
US Department of Defense “Payment of Expenses to Help Respond to Civilian Harm,” 2023. [Link]
US Department of Defense. “DOD Instruction Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response 3000.17,” December 21, 2023. [Link]
United States Africa Command. “Civilian Harm Reporting” n.d. [Link]
US Department of Defense. “2023 Annual Report on Civilian Casualties in US Military Operations,” December 19, 2024. [Link]

Civil Society

Human Rights Watch. “Getting Away with Torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees.” April 2005. [Link]
American Civil Liberties Union. “ACLU Letter Urges President Obama to Reject Targeted Killings Outside Conflict Zones,” American Civil Liberties Union, April 27, 2010. [Link]
See Wu, Nichlas and John Fritze, “Trump Pardons Servicemembers in High Profile War Crimes Cases,” USA TODAY, November 16, 2019. [Link]
Center for Civilians in Conflict & Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute. “In Search of Answers: U.S. Military Investigations and Civilian Harm,” 2020. [Link]
Mahanty, Daniel R. and Annie Shiel, “Protecting Civilians Still Matters in Great-Power Conflict,” Defense One, April 13, 2021. [Link]
Shiel, Annie. “DOD’S New Ex Gratia Policy: What’s Right, What’s Wrong, and What’s Next.” Just Security, June 2, 2021. [Link]
Burke, Roseanne and Mark Lattimer. “Reparations for civilian harm from military operations: Towards a UK policy” Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, November 2021. [Link]
McNerney, Michael J., Gabrielle Tarini, Karen M. Sudkamp, Larry Lewis, Michelle Grisé, and Pauline Moore. “U.S. Department of Defense Civilian Casualty Policies And Procedures: An Independent Assessment.” RAND, January 27, 2022. [Link]
Airwars. “Analysis: US Declares Its Military Actions Worldwide Killed No Civilians in 2022,” https://airwars.org/research/analysis-us-declares-its-military-actions-worldwide-killed-no- civilians-in-2022/. See also Airwars. “US forces in Somalia,” n.d. [Link]
Karlshoej-Pedersen, Megan. “US-UK Strikes in Yemen Raise Questions About Commitments on Civilian Harm Mitigation.” Just Security, May 1,  2024. [Link]
Naples-Mitchell, Joanna, and Annie Shiel. “For Another Year, DoD Fails to Make Condolence Payments to Civilian Harm Victims.” Just Security, May 8,  2024. [Link]
Center for Civilians in Conflict & Stimson Center. “Tracking implementation of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP),” November 2024. [Link]

Media

The New York Times. “The Civilian Casualty Files,” n.d. [Link]
CBS News. “Marine Gets No Jail Time for Haditha Killings,” January 24, 2012. [Link]
BBC. “Decorated US soldier 'admitted murder in CIA job interview'”. BBC, 14 December, 2018. [Link]
The New York Times. “How a U.S. Drone Strike Killed the Wrong Person,” September 10, 2021. [Link]
Nezhat, Omar, Meg Kelly, Alex Horton and Imogen Piper. “U.S. officials walk back claim drone strike killed senior al-Qaeda leader,” The Washington Post, May 18, 2023. [Link]
Horton, Alex and Meg Kelly. “U.S. forces thought they killed a terrorist. They got the wrong man,” The Washington Post, May 2, 2024. [Link]
Kelly, Meg and Missy Ryan. “Pentagon urged to make payments for slain, injured civilians.” The Washington Post, November 16, 2024. [Link]

United States

Country summary

1. National policy

Recommendations

2. Civilian harm tracking

Recommendations

3. Investigations

Recommendations

4. Public reporting & transparency

Recommendations

5. Post-harm response

Recommendations

Resources

Government

Civil Society

Media

Contact

Sitemap