Trump Lawyers Cite DOJ Opinion to Claim Maduro Raid Avoids Constitutional War
Updated (2 articles)
DOJ Opinion Defines Legal Boundaries for Maduro Operation The Office of Legal Counsel issued a heavily redacted opinion on Dec. 23, prepared for the White House National Security Council, asserting that a limited raid on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro could proceed without triggering a constitutional war. The memo argues the action serves vital national interests, falls within presidential authority, and can be justified under law‑enforcement‑related use of force. It stresses that even a lawful presidential order requires reasonable implementation by personnel to avoid war‑level escalation[1].
Five Justifications Emphasized for Limited Military Role The opinion lists five reasons supporting a constrained military involvement: Maduro’s alleged severe drug‑trafficking activities, other dangerous conduct by his associates, the need to protect civilians both in Venezuela and abroad, the threat of armed resistance to U.S. personnel, and the broader national‑security imperative. These factors are presented as sufficient to legitimize force without convening Congress or declaring war[1].
Midnight Raid Executed on January 3 After Opinion Release middle‑of‑night operation took place on Jan. 3, targeting Maduro’s location shortly after the opinion was circulated. The memo cites a scenario where up to 200 armed guards, supplied by a foreign nation, defended Maduro, illustrating the anticipated resistance and informing the raid’s security measures. The timing of the raid aligns with the opinion’s emphasis on rapid action to mitigate risks[1].
Congressional Reaction Highlights Partisan Divide Over War Powers Senate Republicans voted to dismiss a resolution that would have limited future strikes against Venezuela, claiming they received no advance notice of the Jan. 3 raid. The dismissal underscores the partisan split over presidential war‑powers and the administration’s interpretation of the DOJ opinion as authorizing the operation without congressional approval[1].
Timeline
Mar 2025 – President Trump invokes the 18th‑century Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, labeling them a foreign terrorist organization acting with Maduro’s government. The move bypasses normal pre‑removal notices and sparks immediate legal challenges across federal courts. [1]
May 2025 – U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who later presides over Maduro’s criminal case, issues an order blocking the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in the Southern District of New York, ruling that courts must retain authority to scrutinize the designation and removals. This decision becomes a key precedent limiting the administration’s rapid‑deportation scheme. [1]
Mid‑Mar 2025 – The Supreme Court, while not deciding the constitutional validity of the Alien Enemies Act invocation, instructs lower courts that migrants targeted under the wartime authority are entitled to due‑process protections, effectively halting large‑scale deportations that began in March. The Court’s guidance curtails the administration’s ability to conduct swift removals without judicial review. [1]
2025 (three‑judge panel) – A three‑judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful because the government has not shown a “predatory incursion” by Tren de Aragua into the United States. The panel also rejects the claim that courts lack power to assess presidential assertions of foreign direction of the gang. [1]
Dec 23 2025 – The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issues a heavily redacted opinion stating that a limited military operation to remove Nicolás Maduro would not rise to the level of a constitutional war, citing five justifications such as severe drug‑trafficking allegations and the need to protect civilians. The memo frames the planned raid as a lawful presidential power that does not require congressional approval. [2]
Jan 3 2026 – U.S. forces carry out a midnight raid in Venezuela to apprehend Maduro, acting on the OLC opinion’s assessment that the operation does not constitute a war. The raid follows the opinion’s scenario describing “up to 200 armed guards” protecting Maduro, which the memo uses to justify heightened security measures. [2]
Jan 6 2026 – The Justice Department files a brief in the New Orleans‑based 5th Circuit, citing Maduro’s recent indictment to defend President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and arguing that the case falls outside “the realm of judicial interference.” The filing seeks to limit appellate review of the deportations and positions the indictment as evidence of a high‑level national‑security mission. [1]
Jan 14 2026 – Trump’s lawyers publicly argue that the Maduro ouster plan does not meet the threshold of a constitutional war, echoing the December OLC opinion and emphasizing that the operation serves vital national interests while remaining within presidential authority. Their statements reinforce the administration’s stance that the raid was legally permissible without a congressional war declaration. [2]
All related articles (2 articles)
External resources (1 links)
- https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1423306/dl?inline (cited 1 times)