A classified Justice Department legal opinion disclosed to Congress this week asserts that President Donald Trump was not restricted by U.S. or international law when he authorized a military-backed operation to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, a conclusion that is intensifying debate over presidential war powers, sovereignty and the limits of covert force.
The operation, carried out late in December 2025 and referred to internally as "Absolute Resolve," was presented by the administration as a law-enforcement action aimed at arresting Maduro on longstanding U.S. charges related to drug trafficking and corruption. A White House official told CNN that the mission was "an administration-wide effort to arrest the head of a major narco-trafficking foreign terrorist organization," adding, "The Department of Justice routinely executes federal arrest warrants abroad."
The newly revealed opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel spans roughly 20 to 30 pages and was previously classified, with limited excerpts now declassified and shared with lawmakers. According to people familiar with the document, the memo concludes that Trump's authority under Article II of the Constitution, as commander in chief, allowed him to approve the operation without prior congressional authorization.
The memo argues that "Absolute Resolve" did not constitute a war under constitutional standards and therefore did not trigger the War Powers Resolution. It characterizes the mission as limited in scope and duration, focused on the apprehension of a specific individual rather than regime change or sustained military engagement.
Central to the opinion is reliance on a 1989 Justice Department analysis prepared under then-Attorney General William Barr, which held that presidents possess inherent constitutional authority to direct covert actions in foreign countries, even when those actions may conflict with international law. The new memo cites that precedent to assert that international legal constraints do not bind the president when executing U.S. law-enforcement actions abroad, provided they do not violate the Constitution.
The document also emphasizes proportionality, stating that the level of force contemplated was calibrated to the perceived threat and potential resistance. It notes that the administration assessed the risk of escalation as manageable and tailored the mission to avoid broader confrontation with Venezuelan forces.
Democratic lawmakers have sharply criticized the memo's conclusions, arguing that the use of U.S. military assets to seize a sitting foreign head of state amounts to an act of war in substance, regardless of how it is labeled. They contend that treating such an operation as routine law enforcement undermines Congress's constitutional role in authorizing the use of force.
