Justice Department Memo Cited to Justify Military Incursion Into Venezuela
đź“… January 7, 2026
✍️ Editor: Sudhir Choudhary, The Vagabond News
Washington, D.C. / Caracas — A classified U.S. Department of Justice memorandum dating back to 1989 has emerged as a key legal underpinning cited by the Trump administration to justify the extraordinary military incursion into Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, legal experts and government sources say. Law & Crime+1
The operation, executed on January 3, 2026, involved elite U.S. forces striking targets in Caracas and extracting Maduro to the United States to face federal criminal charges in New York. The unprecedented attack has reverberated across international capitals, igniting legal challenges, diplomatic condemnations, and a constitutional debate over presidential authority, military power, and international law. Wikipedia
Memo From the Past, Justification for the Present
At the center of legal rationales offered by U.S. officials is a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion from 1989 authored during the administration of then–Attorney General Bill Barr, a memo that argued the executive branch had broad authority to pursue extraterritorial law enforcement actions—even those that might violate international law. While written decades ago in a different geopolitical context, the document has resurfaced as a cornerstone of the current administration’s defense of the Venezuela operation. Law & Crime
Prominent legal analysts have noted that the memo’s reasoning could be deployed to justify actions like the Maduro capture by treating them as lawful exercises of executive power, even absent congressional authorization or express adherence to international legal norms. Such reasoning echoes the historical capture of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega in 1989, when U.S. forces apprehended him on drug charges and brought him to face trial—another contentious case that skirted conventional boundaries of international jurisprudence. New Hampshire Public Radio
Legal Justifications and Presidential Power
The Trump administration has not publicly released a detailed legal white paper on the Venezuela operation, but senior officials have indicated that the Justice Department memo provides a basis for asserting broad executive authority in pursuit of enforcement of U.S. law. According to U.S. State Department statements, the incursion was presented as a law enforcement action carried out in support of a domestic arrest warrant, rather than a traditional invasion requiring congressional war powers authorization. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the mission as involving law enforcement agents escorted and protected by military forces as they served the warrant against Maduro. New Hampshire Public Radio
White House spokespeople have likewise stressed that Maduro was not treated as an enemy combatant but as a fugitive subject to U.S. jurisdiction, arguing that longstanding precedents allow the United States to pursue transnational offenders. This framing, proponents argue, differentiates the operation from conventional acts of war. New Hampshire Public Radio
International Law and Global Response
International legal scholars, human rights advocates, and foreign governments have vehemently rejected the administration’s position, calling the military action unlawful under the United Nations Charter and customary international law. Under Article 2(4) of the Charter, the use of force against another sovereign state is prohibited absent U.N. Security Council authorization or a valid claim of self-defense, circumstances that international legal experts contend are not present in the case of Venezuela. Just Security+1
Critics argue that relying on a decades-old DOJ memo to justify a kinetic strike on Caracas undermines established norms of state sovereignty, jeopardizes civilian protections, and could embolden other nations to undertake similar breaches of international law. Nations including Russia, China, and Cuba have condemned the operation as a violation of global legal order, while some European Union officials have signaled concern about long-term implications for regional stability. House of Commons Library
Domestic Debate Intensifies
Within the United States, the legal grounding for the operation has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over executive war powers. Several lawmakers have called for a War Powers Resolution vote, asserting that the president’s unilateral decision to launch a cross-border military mission without explicit congressional authorization contravenes the Constitution. One Republican representative publicly urged impeachment proceedings over what he described as an “unlawful invasion.” Facebook
Supporters of the administration have defended the action as a necessary enforcement of U.S. criminal law against an international narcotics network allegedly tied to the Venezuelan leadership, framing the Maduro regime as a threat to national security. They argue that the broader context of drug trafficking and transnational crime warrants decisive action, a claim that has found some sympathetic voices in conservative legal circles. City Journal
On the Ground in Venezuela
The operation itself has left a complex legacy in Venezuela, where at least dozens of Venezuelan security personnel and allied foreign fighters were killed during the raid, according to local reports. Vice President Delcy RodrĂguez was sworn in as interim president in the immediate aftermath, rejecting the legality of Maduro’s removal. Caracas remains tense, with sporadic clashes and a heavy military presence across the capital. Wikipedia
Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are now in U.S. custody and have appeared in federal court to face drug trafficking and associated charges—a legal process that observers say will itself become a global spectacle testing the limits of territorial jurisdiction and international norms. Wikipedia
Conclusion
The resurfacing of a 35-year-old Justice Department memo as justification for a modern military incursion underscores the fraught intersection of domestic law, executive power, and international legal obligations. As courts, capitals, and international institutions weigh the implications, the Venezuela operation stands as one of the most consequential tests yet of how far the United States can extend its enforcement reach under the banner of law.
Sources: Reuters, Associated Press, NPR, Just Security, The Guardian, Washington Post.
Tags:
U.S.–Venezuela Relations, Justice Department Memo, Executive Power, International Law, Military Intervention, Nicolás Maduro, Trump Administration, War Powers, U.S. Foreign Policy
News by The Vagabond News
