The document, released in heavily redacted form, provides the first detailed public accounting of the legal framework the Trump administration used to justify deploying U.S. military force to remove a sitting foreign head of state and deliver him to face federal drug charges in the United States.
Days before U.S. forces removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power on Jan. 3, Justice Department lawyers concluded the operation would not constitute a constitutional war requiring congressional approval and would serve important national interests, according to a heavily redacted legal opinion released this week.
The 22-page opinion, dated Dec. 23 and prepared for the legal counsel of the White House National Security Council, was produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — the body typically convened to resolve complex legal questions for the executive branch. The document provided the administration’s formal legal basis for a nighttime military operation that removed Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from the Venezuelan presidency.
The document addressed whether President Donald Trump could lawfully direct the military to help law enforcement remove Maduro for extradition to face criminal charges in the United States. The opinion concluded he could, citing five distinct reasons.
Those reasons included what the document described as serious allegations against Maduro in a federal drug trafficking conspiracy indictment, numerous other allegedly dangerous activities involving Maduro and his associates, a possible need for military force to protect civilians in Venezuela and abroad, and the anticipated likelihood that personnel would encounter armed resistance.
The memo stated that lawyers were told to assume up to 200 armed guards were positioned at Maduro’s location — which the document characterized as literally a fortress — sent and armed by another country solely to guarantee his security. That level of anticipated resistance, the opinion said, supported the use of military forces to provide security for law enforcement personnel carrying out the handover.
The opinion also included significant caveats. It acknowledged that legal authorization of an operation does not by itself render every use of force in its execution lawful, and that personnel must carry out their orders in a reasonable manner. The document also stated that the administration had been assured there was no contingency plan for U.S. forces to occupy Venezuela should Maduro’s removal produce civil unrest.
Congressional reaction
Republican congressional leaders said they were not notified in advance of the operation to capture Maduro and Flores. Last week the Senate approved a resolution that would limit Trump’s ability to conduct additional military operations against Venezuela — a rebuke of what supporters of the measure described as the administration’s expanding ambitions in the Western Hemisphere.
Trump was pressing Senate Republicans to vote against the resolution on Wednesday, the Associated Press reported.