When Power Moves Faster Than Process
- Olga Nesterova
- 1 hour ago
- 5 min read
What U.S. Actions Abroad Reveal When Institutional Guardrails Weaken
In recent weeks, U.S. actions abroad have triggered intense public debate not only about legality or outcomes, but about process itself. As military operations, enforcement actions, and coercive measures unfold at speed, a deeper question has emerged: not what the United States can do, but what it is institutionally meant to do.
That distinction — between capability and institutional normalcy — is where risk accumulates.
To help unpack this moment, I spoke with Chris Meagher, former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs under Secretary Lloyd Austin, and former White House Deputy Press Secretary. Drawing on his experience inside both the Pentagon and the White House, Meagher focused less on personalities and more on systems: how decisions are typically made, how precedent is weighed, and what happens when established guardrails are bypassed.
What follows is an explanation of how power, process, and trust interact — and what is at stake when those relationships begin to fray.
Capability vs. Institutional Normalcy
Meagher emphasized that the United States possesses unparalleled military, intelligence, and diplomatic capacity. But institutional normalcy, he noted, has never been defined by raw capability alone.
“Just because the United States can do something doesn’t mean it should,” he said.
Under normal circumstances, major actions abroad are subjected to extensive internal stress-testing. At the Pentagon, that includes legal review, historical precedent, alignment with national and international law, and careful consideration of downstream consequences — not only operationally, but diplomatically and politically.
That process exists precisely because U.S. actions set precedent.
In contrast, Meagher described a pattern in which presidential social media statements are treated as de facto press releases — triggering rapid execution without the usual institutional friction.
Whether through lack of engagement with existing systems or a conscious decision to bypass them, the result is the same: tools designed to slow decision-making are switched off.
Meagher emphasized that institutional norms exist precisely to force pauses in which legal, historical, and strategic consequences are assessed. When those pauses disappear, he warned, risk increases.
Venezuela: Pressure, Coercion, and the Absence of Clear Objectives
Venezuela offers a case study in how norm erosion plays out in practice.
Meagher stressed that any lawful pressure campaign must begin with a clearly articulated objective. In recent actions, he noted, that clarity has been absent. Different rationales — counter-narcotics, oil security, regime change — have surfaced at different moments, sometimes simultaneously.
Without that clarity, even actions that may be lawful in isolation risk drifting into a gray zone. Questions quickly arise: Were these actions grounded in domestic law, international law, or neither? Should Congress have been consulted? What legal framework governs military operations conducted under ambiguous mandates?
Meagher also raised concerns about tactics that push against established boundaries — including strikes carried out under disputed legal authority and the use of military aircraft presented as civilian. These are not merely tactical questions, he noted, but institutional ones.
Why Precedent Still Matters
Urgency is often cited to justify departures from process. But for institutions, urgency does not negate precedent — it heightens its importance.
Meagher stressed that every major action sets precedent — becoming a reference point that allies, adversaries, and future administrations will study and potentially replicate.
During his time at the Department of Defense, decisions were routinely assessed not only for immediate impact, but for how they might be quoted years later — by allies, adversaries, or future administrations. Shortcuts taken today can become justifications tomorrow.
When legal interpretations are stretched, or review mechanisms sidelined, the message is absorbed far beyond Washington. Allies study behavior. Adversaries catalog it.
The erosion of precedent, Meagher warned, rarely remains contained.
Alliance Coordination and NATO’s Fragile Glue
Nowhere is process more consequential than in alliance management.
Meagher described significant unease among European partners, driven less by policy outcomes than by inconsistent signaling. Conflicting messages from senior U.S. officials — including the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State — have left allies struggling to discern intent.
According to Meagher, allies are often less focused on decisions themselves than on whether they were consulted and included in the process. Within NATO, coordination functions as the connective tissue that prevents miscalculation. Consultation clarifies intent, scope, and limits, helping sustain alliance cohesion.
Even rhetoric framed as bluster can distort alliance dynamics. Public references to actions involving Greenland, Denmark, or NATO itself, Meagher noted, introduce uncertainty that earlier generations of alliance architects could scarcely have imagined.
Public Affairs vs. Public Understanding
Having overseen communications for the Department of Defense, Meagher was particularly clear on the dangers of politicized messaging during crises.
The Pentagon, he stressed, is designed to be fundamentally apolitical. While political appointees shape policy, the institution itself relies on professional norms to protect credibility — and lives.
“Our responsibility was to communicate accurately and on time,” he said. “This is a trillion-dollar institution funded by taxpayers, and what you say can put people in danger.”
He contrasted that approach with recent instances in which conclusions were publicly declared before investigations had unfolded — including cases involving fatal law enforcement actions.
Under normal circumstances, Meagher explained, institutions allow facts to emerge before assigning labels or narratives.
Meagher recalled a drone strike during his tenure that was initially believed to have hit a legitimate target. As reporting emerged raising questions, officials emphasized that an investigation was ongoing rather than asserting certainty. That investigation later confirmed the strike had been mistaken.
He underscored the importance of allowing investigations to run their course before assigning definitive narratives.
Disinformation and Narrative Pressure
Moments of uncertainty are fertile ground for disinformation.
Meagher explained that adversarial campaigns often exploit the gap between an event and an official statement, pushing confident narratives before facts are verified. At the same time, media ecosystems can amplify anonymous claims framed as revelations — positioning institutions against one another.
Readers, he cautioned, should be wary of narratives that present complex events as binary or morally simplistic. Overconfidence, especially from unverified sources, is often a red flag.
“Real situations are rarely black and white,” he said.
Then and Now: What Changed — and What Didn’t
Comparing the current environment with his time in government, Meagher pointed to sharp differences in tone and transparency. Information is released more aggressively, sometimes without the evidentiary foundation that traditionally underpins public claims. Formal briefings have diminished. Messaging has accelerated.
What has not changed, he said, is the underlying resilience of the national security system itself.
Despite the current turbulence, Meagher expressed confidence in the resilience of the national security system and the career professionals who continue to serve apolitically.
The Long View
When norms around sovereignty, military action, and public justification erode, the costs compound.
Domestically, trust declines. Internationally, credibility weakens. Expedient decisions may deliver short-term momentum, but they make errors more likely — and correction more difficult.
Meagher argued that when power is exercised without transparency and restraint, trust erodes — making long-term foreign policy objectives harder to achieve with both allies and adversaries.
Process, in this sense, is not an obstacle to action. It is the mechanism that allows power to be exercised responsibly — and sustainably.
As this moment unfolds, the challenge is not merely what decisions are made, but whether the systems designed to govern them are still allowed to function.