The Trump administration has relaxed restrictions on how U.S. commanders approve airstrikes and raids, U.S. officials said Friday, paving the way for the U.S. military to respond more rapidly to perceived threats.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth acknowledged the decision on social media, confirming a CBS News report simply by writing on X: “Correct.” The Pentagon cited Hegseth’s social media post in response to questions, but did not provide additional details. Another U.S. defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said battlefield commanders have received new authorization in recent days to carry out operations without seeking high-level approvals that were required during the Biden administration.

The decision marks a throwback to President Donald Trump’s first administration, when he loosened battlefield restrictions and said he would not tie the hands of U.S. troops operating in hostile areas. A significant spike in airstrikes against enemy combatants followed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other countries.

Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, said in a statement Friday that Trump “will not hesitate to eliminate any terrorist who is plotting to kill Americans.”

“We won’t tolerate Biden-era bureaucracy preventing our warfighters from doing their job,” Hughes said. “America is back in the business of counterterrorism and killing Jihadists.”

While defense officials at times voiced frustrations about restrictions on military action, the Biden administration also launched numerous strikes on militant groups and leaders, including strikes in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon has acknowledged a number of strikes in recent days, including an attack in Somalia on Tuesday against the militant group al-Shabab. U.S. Africa Command said in a statement that the airstrike was carried out at the request of the Somali government and included an initial assessment that no civilians were injured or killed.

On Feb. 21, U.S. forces also carried out an airstrike in northwest Syria that U.S. military officials said killed Wasim Tahsin Bayraqdar, a “senior leadership facilitator” of Hurras al-Din, which U.S. intelligence officials say adheres to al-Qaeda ideology. U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, said in a statement that the strike was part of an effort to “disrupt and degrade efforts by terrorists to plan, organize, and conduct attacks against civilians and military personnel from the U.S., our allies and our partners throughout the region and beyond.”

Hegseth said that while the Trump administration is examining where to keep U.S. forces, he remains concerned about Islamist threats.

“Anybody of my generation that served in Iraq and Afghanistan … understands the threat of global jihad, especially the desire to export that against our allies in Europe or Israel or certainly the United States of America,” he said on Feb. 12 in Stuttgart, Germany.

The decision comes after the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel created new concerns about militant violence against the West, and as the Islamic State has a presence from Afghanistan to Yemen. A report last year by the Director of National Intelligence’s office said that Iran also continues to threaten Americans in the Middle East and seek to target former and current U.S. officials in retaliation for the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani during the first Trump administration.

Bradley Bowman, a former Army officer now with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank in Washington, applauded the decision to allow faster decision-making against terrorist threats.

“The time between detection, decision and action can be the difference between life and death for Americans and our allies,” Bowman said. “That means delegating authority where it makes sense and not trying to adjudicate and manage every battlefield strike or raid out of the Pentagon or the White House.”

But Bowman also voiced a note of caution, saying that battlefield errors can have major strategic consequences. It is necessary, he said, to have clear operational and ethical guidance for U.S. troops and military leaders making decisions.

“The general tendency we have seen in recent Democrat administrations is too much Washington, D.C., micromanagement of battlefield decisions,” Bowman said. “Some of what we are seeing now is a necessary correction, but it is important to not swing from one extreme to the other, and the devil will be in the details.”

Jason Dempsey, a former Army officer and adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, took a dimmer view of the Trump administration’s new approach. Killing people, he said, has never been difficult for the U.S. military, but even targeted airstrikes can sow hostility aimed at the United States.

“Lack of imagination, I guess, is really what gets me,” said Dempsey, who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. “The operators on the ground and people like Hegseth are like: ‘I just need to kill these terrorists.’ And it’s often shortsighted.”