Imperial Prerogative: How the Panama Invasion and the “Barr Doctrine” Set the Stage for the Maduro “Snatch” Operation

16.01.2026

Edited by Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi

Source:https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/2026-01-16/imperial-prerogative-how-panama-invasion-and-barr-doctrine-set-stage

1989 legal memos said President had “inherent constitutional authority” to act unilaterally and “contravene customary international law”

CIA warned that Noriega could produce “credible new evidence...that would incriminate US government officials in the Iran-Contra affair”

Washington, D.C., January 16, 2026 - The Justice Department official who wrote the legal opinion determining that President Donald Trump had the constitutional authority to “unilaterally order” the “extraordinary rendition” of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro relied heavily on secret legal architecture authored 36 years ago by William P. Barr to justify the U.S. invasion of Panama, according to declassified documents uncovered by the National Security Archive. These include secret White House memos, highly classified intelligence reports, and sensitive legal opinions recently discovered among the George H. W. Bush presidential papers and that were published today for the first time by the Archive.

In 1989, Barr, who was then Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), wrote at least five legal opinions—at least two of which remain classified—related to U.S. efforts to remove Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega from power. Chief among them was a finding that the President had the “inherent constitutional authority” to arrest individuals abroad “even if those actions contravene customary international law” and “even if they contravene unexecuted treaties or treaty provisions, such as Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter,” which bars threats and use of force among member states except in self-defense. Barr later served as U.S. Attorney General during Trump’s first term and authorized the original U.S. indictment of Maduro in 2020.

On December 23, 2025, Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser cited two of those Barr opinions, posted today by the Archive, in determining that the President can use the military for law enforcement purposes without regard to international law and without congressional authorization. While the Gaiser opinion is heavily redacted, context suggests that he also relied on a third, still classified, opinion, also written by Barr in 1989, in determining that the inadvertent killing of a head of state during a rendition operation does not carry a significant legal risk.

In this Electronic Briefing Book, National Security Archive research fellow Dr. Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi takes a detailed look at the U.S. decision-making process in the runup to the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, focusing on Barr’s pivotal 1989 legal opinions, arguing that they should be understood as the “Barr Doctrine.” According to the author, Barr’s opinions justifying the removal of Noriega established a comprehensive, secret legal framework asserting the President’s unfettered ability to conduct foreign policy unilaterally, including through military force, covert action, and in law enforcement operations.

Other declassified highlights from today’s posting include:

• A March 1988 CIA intelligence assessment warning that Noriega might react to U.S. sanctions by providing “credible new evidence to the US media or Special Prosecutor Walsh that would incriminate US government officials in the Iran-Contra affair.”

• The addenda to a still classified March 1989 policy paper on Panama that proposed a “snatch” operation to get rid of Noriega and concluded that, while it was certain to provoke criticism in Latin America and internationally, that any outcry was “likely to abate quickly” if the operation succeeded.

• The minutes of a National Security Council meeting held six months prior to the invasion, in which a frustrated President Bush approved escalatory actions to bait Noriega: “The only option he [Bush] could see is more U.S. actions and hope that there would be some other thing happening to get this man out.”

• A June OLC opinion in which Barr argued that the President has the constitutional authority to “deploy the FBI to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if those actions contravene customary international law” or the UN Charter.

• A fully unredacted essay published in Studies in Intelligence by CIA lawyer Jonathan Fredman that sheds light on a still classified 1989 OLC opinion in which Barr argued that the ban on assassinations did not preclude U.S. government personnel from supporting a coup against a repressive foreign government even if the death of the head of state was likely.