The outstanding felony case in opposition to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was captured by U.S. forces in Caracas on Jan. 3, is already underway in New York Metropolis. Maduro just isn’t the primary overseas chief to face trial in america, however his case continues to be controversial and weird.
Whereas a lot stays up within the air and this authorized drama has solely simply begun, right here’s what we all know and don’t know concerning the case in opposition to Maduro thus far.
The costs. The indictment in opposition to Maduro, which additionally consists of his spouse, Cilia Flores, and 4 different people, alleges that he and different Venezuelan leaders “abused their positions of public belief and corrupted once-legitimate establishments to import tons of cocaine into america” for greater than 25 years.
The indictment was filed within the U.S. District Court docket of the Southern District of New York. Maduro was indicted on 4 counts: narcoterrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine weapons and harmful gadgets, and conspiracy to own machine weapons and harmful gadgets. The narcoterrorism fees embrace alleged cooperation with Colombian paramilitary teams such because the FARC and ELN, Mexican drug gangs together with the Sinaloa Cartel, and the ever-present Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. He might resist life in jail if convicted.
In the meantime, the indictment accuses Flores of accepting bribes in 2007 to dealer a gathering between a “large-scale drug trafficker” and the director of Venezuela’s Nationwide Anti-Drug Workplace. The U.S. grievance additionally alleges that Maduro and Flores “ordered kidnappings, beatings, and murders in opposition to those that owed them drug cash or in any other case undermined their drug trafficking operation, together with ordering the homicide of a neighborhood drug boss in Caracas, Venezuela.”
The indictment revises and builds on a 2020 indictment in opposition to Maduro that accused him of heading the so-called “Cartel de los Soles,” which consultants have emphasised just isn’t an precise group however a slang time period for corrupt Venezuelan officers who settle for drug cash.
Notably, whereas the 2020 indictment explicitly accuses Maduro of main the Cartel de los Soles, the 2026 indictment drops this assertion and now not refers to it as a corporation however a “patronage system.” The 2020 indictment talked about the Cartel de los Soles a complete of 32 instances, whereas the brand new grievance solely mentions it twice.
The Trump administration has repeatedly referenced the Cartel de los Soles in public remarks main as much as and after Maduro’s seize. In remarks to the U.N. Safety Council on Jan. 5, for instance, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz stated Maduro is “the top of a vicious overseas terrorist group Cartel de los Soles.” However the Trump administration is outwardly abandoning such assertions within the authorized proceedings in opposition to Maduro.
The 2026 indictment additionally differs in that it provides new co-defendants, together with Flores. Among the many others charged are Maduro’s son, Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra, and Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, the chief of Tren de Aragua.
The choose. U.S. District Court docket Choose Alvin Hellerstein, a 92-year-old who has been on the bench for shut to 3 a long time, is presiding over the trial. Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, has a historical past of ruling in opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump. Final spring, for instance, Hellerstein barred the Trump administration from deporting migrants below the Alien Enemies Act.
“That is america of America,” Hellerstein stated on the time. “Individuals are being thrown overseas due to their tattoos.”
The prosecutors. The U.S. Legal professional’s Workplace for the Southern District of New York, which is led by U.S. Legal professional Jay Clayton, is prosecuting the case. Clayton, who chaired the U.S. Securities and Trade Fee within the first Trump administration, signed the indictment in opposition to Maduro and his spouse.
Amanda Houle, the chief of the workplace’s felony division, can be on the case. Houle was among the many lead prosecutors within the 2020 case in opposition to Maduro.
Assistant U.S. Legal professional Kyle Wirshba spoke on behalf of the federal government at Maduro’s arraignment on Jan. 5. Wirshba was additionally concerned within the 2020 indictment of Maduro.
The protection. Maduro is being represented by Barry Pollack, an skilled Washington-based lawyer with a historical past of involvement in high-profile instances. Pollack, who early in his profession garnered the nickname “Pit Bull” for his tenacity, represented WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and negotiated the plea deal that noticed him launched from a British jail. He additionally beforehand secured the acquittal of former Enron accountant Michael Krautz.
Mark Donnelly, a Houston-based lawyer, is representing Flores. Donnelly, a lawyer with the agency Parker Sanchez & Donnelly, beforehand labored for the U.S. Justice Division for greater than a decade, together with as a senior advisor to the U.S. lawyer for the Southern District of Texas, in response to his on-line biography.
What’s occurred thus far. Maduro and Flores had been arraigned on Jan. 5 in Manhattan. They pleaded not responsible. “I’m harmless. I’m not responsible. I’m an honest man. I’m nonetheless president of my nation,” Maduro stated, talking by means of an interpreter. Their subsequent courtroom date is March 17.
Hellerstein vowed to offer Maduro a good trial. “That’s my job, and that’s my intent,” Hellerstein stated.
The proof. Maduro is regarded throughout a lot of the world as a corrupt, illegitimate, and undemocratic chief whose insurance policies and actions fomented widespread struggling in Venezuela for years, which the Trump administration has repeatedly famous in justifying its operation to seize him. However Maduro just isn’t on trial in america for stealing elections or his remedy of the Venezuelan folks.
That stated, the Trump administration has but to supply onerous proof to again up lots of its allegations in opposition to Maduro, significantly these relating to drug trafficking. Authorized consultants have expressed doubts that the federal government has sufficient direct proof to again up its fees in opposition to Maduro relating to cocaine trafficking and narcoterrorism. Lengthy story brief, securing a drug trafficking conviction in opposition to Maduro could possibly be extraordinarily troublesome.
Alongside these strains, it’s price reiterating that the general public feedback the administration continues to make in opposition to Maduro in relation to the “Cartel de los Soles” don’t match up with what’s within the indictment itself. The indictment additionally hyperlinks Maduro to felony gangs reminiscent of Tren de Aragua, however the U.S. intelligence neighborhood final 12 months reportedly assessed that the Venezuelan authorities was not directing the gang and that the gang wasn’t committing crimes in america on the Venezuelan authorities’s orders.
Whether or not or not the contradictions between the administration’s public statements and allegations in opposition to Maduro will trigger points for the federal government afterward within the proceedings stays to be seen.
If any of the proof the federal government has is assessed, this might additionally complicate the case for prosecutors and delay the method. The protection might search to strain the federal government into revealing delicate data to strain the prosecution into dropping fees—a tactic referred to as “graymail.”
The primary check: sovereign immunity argument. One of many first questions raised by the kidnapping and trial of Maduro is the legality of placing a head of state within the dock overseas, and certainly that was the primary argument made by protection lawyer Pollack in Maduro’s arraignment listening to. There are literally two questions, each foreshadowed within the 1990 seize of Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega and his subsequent trial in america.
The primary is whether or not it’s authorized for america to forcibly seize a head of state and spirit him away to face justice; nearly all the time bilateral extradition treaties are the popular option to deal with such issues.
However in 1989, the U.S. Justice Division decided that it had the proper to grab even a head of state if that particular person was below indictment in america and authorized extradition was not an possibility (because it was not within the instances of Noriega and Maduro). The argument about improper seize didn’t fly in Noriega’s trial and certain gained’t right here; at any fee, courts usually defer to a authorized doctrine that claims the means by which a defendant is apprehended don’t a lot matter so long as due course of is noticed within the trial itself.
The second is just a little trickier as a result of on the time of his seize Maduro was serving as Venezuela’s president, whereas Noriega was not legally Panama’s president however merely a dictator. However “President” Maduro carries a caveat: America (and about 50 different international locations) deemed him illegitimate and never the true president of Venezuela after widespread fraud within the 2024 elections, which he misplaced in a landslide. America argues in its indictment that Maduro was not the top of state.
Nevertheless, his successor, former Vice President and now appearing President Delcy Rodríguez, stated in her first public feedback that Maduro remained the nation’s rightful president. If Venezuela argues earlier than the courtroom that Maduro is the reliable president and thus enjoys sovereign immunity, that would complicate the early phases of the case. Pollack has promised to pursue that line vigorously.
Different related instances. There are a few earlier instances of Venezuelan officers who confronted U.S. federal fees much like these dealing with Maduro: Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal, a former Venezuelan intelligence official, and Clíver Alcalá, a former Venezuelan normal. Like Maduro, each had been charged with narcoterrorism and trafficking in addition to cooperating with the FARC.
Carvajal, who was arrested (greater than as soon as) in Spain and finally extradited to america in 2023, pleaded responsible to all fees in June 2025; he faces as much as 50 years in jail. Alcalá turned himself in to U.S. officers whereas in Colombia in 2020, was extradited, after which organized a plea deal that dropped the narcotics fees for the seemingly lesser fees of cooperating with terrorists; he obtained a 21-year sentence.
However there are nonetheless a few puzzling elements concerning the U.S. operation and the present case. Diosdado Cabello is the highly effective Venezuelan inside minister named in the identical indictment as Maduro however who at present serves to take care of the nascent rump regime of Rodríguez. America has reportedly warned Cabello that he might share Maduro’s destiny except he steers Caracas in a U.S.-friendly route.
Vladimir Padrino López, who continues to be Venezuela’s protection minister within the regime that Washington is at present working with, can be wished by america and is below indictment on cocaine trafficking fees.
And naturally, one other former Latin American head of state, ex-Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, was extradited to america, tried, and sentenced to 45 years in jail for trafficking tons of cocaine. However Trump, who made preventing drug trafficking the centerpiece of his marketing campaign in opposition to Venezuela, pardoned Hernandez in December, saying final Saturday that he had been handled “unfairly.”
