The Reagan-Era Ban On Assassinations In US & The Loophole That May Have Killed Khamenei

Last Updated:March 03, 2026, 15:47 IST

The ban was a direct response to the Church Committee investigations of 1975, which exposed several CIA plots to “neutralise’ foreign leaders, such as Fidel Castro in Cuba

Can a foreign military legally kill an enemy head of state? The joint military strikes by Israel and the United States, which killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have brought into focus a crucial question—how did America take down a world leader when it is explicitly banned from assassinations?

The question takes us back to an Executive Order (EO) titled United States Intelligence Activities, which was signed by then President Ronald Reagan in December 1981. It sets the rules and structure for US intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence, etc.), including outlining clearly what they are not allowed to do.

The ban is specifically articulated in Section 2.11, which states: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." This is further reinforced by Section 2.12, which prohibits any agency within the intelligence community from participating in or requesting that any third party undertake activities forbidden by the order.

Simply put, this means members of the US government, including intelligence personnel, are prohibited from planning, directing, aiding, or carrying out assassinations. The language, however, is broad—it applies to assassination in general, not just “political" assassination.

Why Was The Ban Put In Place?

The ban was a direct response to the Church Committee investigations of 1975, which exposed several CIA plots to “neutralise’ foreign leaders, such as Fidel Castro in Cuba and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. These operations were part of Cold War covert actions and drew major criticism in Congress. In response, then Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter earlier issued orders restricting assassination and Reagan’s EO 12333 maintained and broadened that prohibition.

The goal was not only political but ethical to show to the world that the US government would not condone assassination as a tool of foreign policy.

Does It Mean Every Killing Is Banned?

This is where the order becomes open to interpretation. EO 12333 doesn’t define “assassination" and because of that, US legal advisers and officials often distinguish between an assassination and lawful targeting during war or self-defence.

Legally, the US seeks to define an assassination as a premeditated killing for political purposes, especially in peacetime or outside of armed conflict. On the other hand, lawful targeting during war or self-defence would be described as killing combatants or leaders who are part of a military threat or engaged in hostilities.

By this definition, killing an enemy leader in a war or in self-defence may not count as “assassination" under EO 12333. By contrast, secretly killing a foreign leader outside the context of armed conflict for political ends would violate the order.

Cases Where The Order Was In Focus

In 2020, the US drone strike that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani raised major debate about whether it violated EO 12333 or was lawful self-defence. The death became a grey area exactly because the order forbids assassination but doesn’t define it.

The newest example would be the case of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei where the US and President Donald Trump are characterising the strikes and the killing as part of a broader military operation against Iran’s nuclear-linked and missile threats, not as a political assassination. They argue that the actions were taken in the context of an ongoing war-like conflict with Iran and its proxies.

Speaking to TIME, an expert said by framing the operation as a military campaign—not a targeted killing outside armed conflict—the US effectively places it in the same category as other wartime strikes against enemy command and control.

Under international law (Article 51 of the United Nations Charter), countries can claim self-defence if they face an imminent attack. However, legal scholars say governments must justify imminence ie immediate threat must be demonstrable, and necessity and proportionality, which means force must be necessary to stop the threat and proportionate to it.

So far, the US hasn’t publicly laid out detailed evidence showing an imminent threat from Khamenei himself, which is why critics (including other states) call the legality dubious.

For America, the killings of enemy leaders during armed combat operations are lawful military actions, not prohibited “assassinations." This interpretation was used to justify lethal strikes against terrorist leaders in the past (for example, ISIS’s Abu Bakr al‑Baghdadi).

By placing the action within a recognised armed conflict, US officials can argue that EO 12333’s ban on assassination doesn’t apply to wartime targeting of enemy leadership—even if that leadership includes a head of state.

News explainers The Reagan-Era Ban On Assassinations In US & The Loophole That May Have Killed Khamenei

Read More