The memo stated that Anwar al-Awlaki was a significant threat with an infeasible probability of capture. Barron therefore justified the killing as legal, as "the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process". The New York Times Editorial Board dismissed the memo's rationale for al-Awlaki's killing, saying it "provides little confidence that the lethal action was taken with real care", instead describing it as "a slapdash pastiche of legal theories—some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law—that was clearly tailored to the desired result."
The memo argued that Anwar al-Awlaki was a significant threat but was unlikely to be captured, justifying the killing as legal because "the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process." The New York Times Editorial Board criticized this rationale, calling it a poorly constructed argument based on obscure legal theories and designed to support the desired outcome.