This question runs into a hard legal reality that has to be stated honestly: there is generally no entitlement-based “reparations” for harm caused by combat operations. What exists instead is a discretionary system of sympathy payments that developed precisely because the ordinary claims law does not cover combat. Understanding that gap, and how it is filled, is the accurate answer.
The gap: the combat exclusion
The United States compensates foreign nationals for some harm through the Foreign Claims Act, which covers death, injury, or property damage caused by the noncombat activities of U.S. forces overseas. But the act contains a decisive limit: a claim arising from combat of the armed forces may not be considered or paid under it. This is the combat exclusion.
The practical consequence is blunt. Harm caused during combat operations, including strikes, generally falls outside the Foreign Claims Act, so there is usually no claims-based entitlement to compensation for it. That is the gap any honest discussion has to acknowledge.
What fills the gap: condolence and ex gratia payments
Because the combat exclusion leaves combat harm uncompensated by the ordinary claims system, the Defense Department uses discretionary mechanisms:
- Condolence (or solatia) payments, cash provided as an expression of sympathy for death, injury, or property damage caused by U.S. or coalition forces, including during combat.
- Ex gratia payments, which local commanders may provide at their discretion for damage, injury, or death incident to combat operations, within applicable regulations.
The critical point is what these are not: they are not an admission of legal liability and not a legal entitlement. They are sympathy payments, authorized as an ad hoc response to the combat exclusion, and whether one is made rests on the command’s discretion.
What that means for an attorney
So “pursuing reparations for wrongful drone targeting” is, in legal terms, usually a matter of seeking a discretionary condolence or ex gratia payment, not enforcing a right to compensation. A military attorney’s honest role is to explain this framework, identify whether a condolence or ex gratia mechanism is available in the relevant operation, and avoid promising an entitlement that the law does not provide.
Consider a family harmed by a mistaken strike: the attorney explains that there is no entitlement to compensation, but discretionary condolence or ex gratia payments may be authorized, without admitting legal liability.
The throughline is candor: combat harm sits outside the entitlement-based claims system because of the combat exclusion, and the available relief is discretionary sympathy payments rather than reparations. Stating that accurately is itself the service, because it sets realistic expectations about what the law does and does not offer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a legal right to compensation for combat-related civilian harm?
Generally no. The Foreign Claims Act excludes claims arising from combat, so combat harm is usually not compensable as an entitlement under that act.
What are condolence or ex gratia payments?
Discretionary cash payments offered as an expression of sympathy for death, injury, or damage incident to combat, not an admission of legal liability.
Who decides whether such a payment is made?
Local commanders may authorize ex gratia or condolence payments at their discretion, within applicable regulations.
This article is general information about civilian-harm payments. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. These programs are discretionary and the rules can change. This article describes the framework in general terms only.
Sources