The Federal Government’s Actions in Venezuela and Minnesota: A New Reality

In Minneapolis, a woman was fatally shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a federal operation. Publicly recorded video spread quickly online, raising many questions about how deadly force was used within the context of the events. Federal officials responded swiftly, calling the shooting an act of self-defense, while the local government pushed back.

Days earlier, in Venezuela, U.S. forces captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in a covert surprise operation and flew them to New York to face federal narcoterrorism charges. The Trump administration framed the mission as a lawful law-enforcement action. Behind the scenes, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel reportedly produced a memo justifying the operation's legality.

One incident is domestic. The other is international.
But together, they reveal something more profound: A new federal government–one increasingly focused on controlling the legal and narrative framing of force. And it's doing so before independent accountability can catch up.

Minnesota: when federal force meets local reality

On January 7, 2026, during an active DHS operation in Minneapolis, an ICE agent shot and killed a woman, now identified as a U.S. citizen. Federal authorities described the encounter as self-defense, claiming the woman used her vehicle in a threatening manner.

But this was not a case defined solely by official statements.

Civilian-recorded video emerged almost immediately. According to the reporting, the footage appears to show shots being fired after the vehicle had already passed the agent. That detail—if confirmed—matters enormously under constitutional law.

The Fourth Amendment standard governing police use of force asks whether an officer's actions were "objectively reasonable" in light of the danger posed by a present threat. What is seen as deadly force can be lawful one second and unlawful the next.

Federal officials have maintained their position, emphasizing officer safety and self-defense. Meanwhile, state and local leaders in Minnesota have expressed frustration over limited access to evidence and the pace of the federal investigation.

That tension is not accidental. When federal agents are involved, the federal government controls the investigation, the evidence, and often the narrative.

How the law shields federal agents

States are not prohibited from prosecuting federal officers, but in practice, those prosecutions rarely go anywhere.

Federal agents can invoke the Supremacy Clause immunity, a doctrine that protects officers from state criminal liability when they act within federal authority and reasonably believe their actions are necessary. Even when states attempt to bring charges, cases are often removed to federal court and dismissed before a jury ever hears the facts.

Federal prosecution is possible—but rare. Civil rights charges under 18 U.S.C. § 242 require proof that an officer willfully violated constitutional rights, an extraordinarily high bar. Mistakes, panic, or even reckless misjudgment usually aren't enough.

In Minnesota, the federal government's early insistence on self-defense, combined with its control over evidence, has attempted to shape public understanding before independent conclusions can be reached.

Venezuela: force abroad, legality at home

If Minnesota shows how federal power operates domestically, Venezuela shows how it operates on the global stage.

In a dramatic operation, U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and transported them to the United States. The administration framed the action as a law enforcement operation tied to existing narcotics indictments—not an act of war.

That framing is doing heavy legal work.

Under U.S. law, military action against a sovereign nation typically requires congressional authorization. Law enforcement operations do not. By characterizing the capture as an arrest rather than a military strike, the administration avoided triggering immediate war-powers scrutiny.

Behind the scenes, lawmakers were briefed on a new legal opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. OLC functions as the executive branch's internal legal authority. Its opinions do not merely interpret the law—they often define it for the government.

This is not new territory for OLC. Past memos have justified:

• Enhanced interrogation techniques during the Bush administration
• Multiple strikes during Obama's tenure
• Lethal maritime drug-interdiction operations in recent years

In each case, OLC provided a legal framework that insulated executive action from immediate judicial or congressional consequences, a pattern followed by the current case of Nicolas Maduro.

International law, brushed aside.

International law experts and United Nations officials have criticized the Maduro operation as a clear violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and the U.N. Charter. From that perspective, the legality of the operation is straightforward: it should not have happened.

But international law lacks direct enforcement power over the United States.

What matters more, practically, is domestic legal legitimacy—and the administration has focused relentlessly on securing it. By grounding the operation in federal indictments and OLC approval, the government has constructed a legal shield that prioritizes U.S. internal law over international consensus.

Congress has begun to push back. The Senate recently advanced a bipartisan resolution aimed at limiting unauthorized military force in or against Venezuela. But even that effort highlights the imbalance: executive action happens first, oversight follows later, if at all.

One strategy, two arenas

Minnesota and Venezuela are not the same case. But they are the same strategy.

In both:

• The federal government acted decisively and forcefully.
• Officials framed the action as lawful and necessary almost immediately.
• Legal authority was asserted early, before independent review.
• Accountability mechanisms were narrowed, delayed, or redirected.

In Minnesota, that meant federal control over the investigation and a self-defense narrative grounded in officer discretion.
In Venezuela, it meant an OLC memo transforming a military incursion into a law-enforcement operation.

This is not about conspiracy. It is about institutional power.

The modern federal government does not wait for courts, Congress, or the public to decide whether its actions were legal. It produces the legal justification itself—then moves forward as if the question has been settled.

A new reality

What emerges from these cases is a new reality in how federal force operates.

Accountability still exists. But it is narrow, slow, and heavily filtered through executive-controlled processes. Video evidence may spark debate, but legal doctrines often blunt its impact. International condemnation may be loud, but domestic legal cover matters more.

The question is no longer whether the federal government can justify its actions. It almost always can. It's whether the law stays a leading protector, or becomes nothing more than words on paper.