Left: Donald Trump speaks at an election night watch party, Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). Right: Photo by: XNY/STAR MAX/IPx 2026 1/5/26 Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are seen in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad, escorted by heavily armed Federal agents as they make their way into an armored car en route to a Federal courthouse in Manhattan on January 5, 2026 in New York City.
Nicolas Maduro’s legal team is making a concerted effort to have the narco-terrorism charges against the Venezuelan leader dismissed. On Thursday, they argued that the actions of the Trump administration have compromised any potential verdict, rendering it “constitutionally suspect.”
In a communication to Senior U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, defense attorney Barry Pollack, known for his work with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, requested the case be dismissed. Pollack also indicated he would step down if the judge opts to proceed with the case.
Pollack highlighted that according to Venezuelan law, the government is responsible for funding Maduro’s defense. However, the U.S. has blocked these funds, potentially burdening American taxpayers with the cost of Maduro’s legal representation instead of allowing him to choose his own counsel.
The letter revealed, “The United States government, through the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), initially permitted Mr. Maduro’s chosen counsel to receive payment from Venezuela’s government. Yet, without explanation, OFAC altered the license to now prevent any funding for defense costs from the Venezuelan government.”
Pollack further argued that Maduro does not have personal funds to secure legal representation. He asserted that the Trump administration’s actions constitute undue interference with his client’s due process rights, labeling it as “particularly unjustifiable.”
Ultimately, Pollack warned that if he is forced to withdraw from the case, any verdict reached would be “constitutionally suspect,” casting doubt on the fairness of the trial proceedings.
“If OFAC’s interference with Mr. Maduro’s ability to fund his defense persists, undersigned counsel cannot remain in the case, nor can Mr. Maduro be represented by any other retained counsel,” the filing claimed. “Not only would the Court need to appoint counsel and foist the cost of Mr. Maduro’s defense on the United States taxpayers, despite the willingness and obligation of the government of Venezuela to pay Mr. Maduro’s defense costs, but also any verdict against Mr. Maduro would be constitutionally suspect.”
Pollack added that a trial “under these circumstances” would be “constitutionally defective and cannot result in a verdict that will withstand later challenge.”
“The United States government, even while authorizing myriad commercial transactions with Venezuela, is prohibiting counsel from receiving untainted funds from the government of Venezuela, despite Venezuela’s obligation to fund Mr. Maduro’s defense,” the filing concluded.
The case was previously mired in a brief attorney controversy shortly after the Trump administration’s raid and Maduro’s arrest in Venezuela.
After Pollack entered an appearance in the case, Bruce Fein, another lawyer of note, asserted in court that he too had been retained to represent Maduro.
A spat ensued on the court docket between Pollack and Fein. That ended with Fein stepping aside from the “mess,” claiming there had been a major misunderstanding.
“Counsel sought admission and entered an appearance in good faith based upon information received from individuals credibly situated within President Maduro’s inner circle or family indicating that President Maduro had expressed a desire for Counsel’s assistance in this matter,” Fein said, offering an explanation.
