Classified DOJ Memo Says Trump Had Authority To Order Maduro Capture, Citing Commander‑In‑Chief Powers

A classified legal opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concludes that President Donald Trump was not constrained by U.S. domestic law when he approved an operation to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, according to people who reviewed the memo. The 20–30 page analysis leans heavily on a 1989 OLC opinion by William Barr and invokes Article II commander‑in‑chief powers as the key legal basis.

Key Legal Findings

The memo finds that the president’s "inherent constitutional authority" under Article II allowed him to order U.S. forces to participate in a law‑enforcement rendition abroad. It treats the central question narrowly: whether domestic law — particularly the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution — constrained the president when he authorized the operation without prior congressional authorization.

Relying on the Barr opinion, OLC concluded that the Maduro operation did not rise to the constitutional threshold of "war" and therefore did not require advance congressional authorization. The memo also emphasizes that, on the facts briefed to OLC on December 22, 2025, the operation’s scope, scale and duration were consistent with a law‑enforcement rendition rather than a warlike campaign.

International Law And Proportionality

The Justice Department released an unclassified version of the memo which says OLC did not reach a definitive conclusion about how international law applied to the operation codenamed Absolute Resolve. The unclassified text states that, for rendition specifically, international law "does not restrict the president as a matter of domestic law."

At the same time, the opinion conditions presidential authority on principles of proportionality: the use of military force to support a law‑enforcement seizure must be limited and proportionate. OLC also noted it had not found that Maduro posed a direct or imminent threat to U.S. forces that would justify a generalized attack on Venezuela.

“What does define the President’s authority to order Absolute Resolve is the Constitution. Based on how the facts were briefed to us on December 22, 2025, we think the president could reasonably make the determinations necessary to order Absolute Resolve.”

Operational Justification And Political Reactions

The memo reasons that the likelihood of armed resistance during a narrowly targeted seizure justified deploying U.S. military support to minimize risk to personnel and achieve law‑enforcement objectives.

A White House official told CNN the administration viewed the action as lawful and described it as an effort to arrest the head of a major narco‑trafficking foreign terrorist organization. "President Trump is committed to enforcing United States law, and the successful rendition of Nicolas Maduro to the United States to answer for his lifetime of crimes was lawful," the official said.

Democratic lawmakers, by contrast, argue that using military force to remove a head of state amounts to an act of war. Administration officials have rejected the characterization of the seizure as a regime change, noting Venezuela’s government remains largely intact and that Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s deputy, is now serving as leader of the government.

This story has been updated with additional details.