Justice Department releases OLC memo justifying military operation in Venezuela

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel released a heavily redacted legal memorandum on Jan. 13–14 laying out the department’s constitutional rationale for the Trump administration’s early-January military operation in Venezuela and the forcible removal of President Nicolás Maduro Moros. The roughly 22-page opinion, which reporting says bears the signature of OLC head T. Elliot Gaiser, argues that the operation “does not rise to the level of war in a constitutional sense,” and therefore that the president was not required to seek congressional authorization.

The memo frames the action principally as a law-enforcement measure linked to drug trafficking and asserts that the president possesses an “inherent constitutional power to authorize law enforcement activities,” including “the extraterritorial arrest of fugitives.” According to reporting, the opinion leans on an earlier 1989 OLC analysis by William Barr and advances a view that extraterritorial law-enforcement uses of force can be treated differently under U.S. constitutional law than armed conflict. At the same time, the document opens with extensive discussion of international law and the U.N. Charter but, several outlets report, does not clearly resolve all international-law questions.

Administration statements accompanying the release framed the operation as lawful. A White House official said, “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,” characterizing Maduro as “the head of a major narco‑trafficking foreign terrorist organization” and a “fugitive of American justice.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to discuss whether OLC had weighed in, saying he would not “get into any discussions,” while asserting there was “no doubt what we did was legal” and arguing the U.S. has “an absolute legal right to go and arrest people charged with horrible crimes.”

Civil rights groups and some lawmakers have attacked the memo’s sweep. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights say the opinion purports to justify lethal strikes that killed civilians and to immunize personnel who authorized or carried out such strikes from later criminal prosecution. One senator who read the opinion in a classified briefing described it as so broad it “would not constrain any use of force anywhere in the world” and “broad enough to authorize just about anything,” according to reporting.

The release follows an Oct. 15, 2025 FOIA request by the ACLU and subsequent litigation that pressed the department to disclose the opinion. The memo was reportedly made available to select members of Congress and their staff in mid-November, and the department circulated the analysis internally before the public release.

Beyond the immediate legal fight, the memorandum carries broader policy and economic implications. By treating the operation as law enforcement rather than military action, the opinion signals a further expansion of executive authority to use force abroad without congressional approval, a trend with long-term consequences for U.S. foreign policy. Markets and investors will watch for potential disruptions to Venezuelan oil shipments, sanctions enforcement and regional stability; political risk premiums and shipping insurance costs could rise if the operation prompts retaliatory measures or sustained instability.

The disclosure is likely to prompt further litigation, additional congressional requests for unredacted briefings, and calls for on-the-record explanations from OLC and Justice Department officials as policymakers and markets assess the legal and strategic precedent the memo sets.