In a surprising turn of events, the legal defense for Nicolas Maduro, the ousted Venezuelan leader facing charges of narco-terrorism at the hands of the Trump administration, has seen an intriguing shake-up. Just days into the proceedings, two notable figures have joined his legal team, sparking a mix of support and controversy.

One of these new additions is Bruce Fein, who previously served as an associate deputy attorney general and FCC general counsel during the Reagan era. Earlier this week, Fein filed a motion for a pro hac vice admission to represent Maduro, which allows a lawyer to practice in a jurisdiction where they are not normally licensed, provided they are in good standing. Such requests are typically procedural and often granted without much fanfare.

Indeed, Senior U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein approved Fein’s application swiftly, allowing him to represent Maduro in the Southern District of New York. However, this addition to the legal team did not come without its share of drama.

Headlines soon buzzed with the news of Fein’s involvement, labeling him as a key addition to Maduro’s defense, while social media platforms lit up with discussions about his reputation as a “constitutional law mastermind.” Notably, Fein has represented high-profile clients, including Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame, adding to the intrigue surrounding his role in the case.

Meanwhile, in a twist that complicates the narrative, Fein himself has reportedly questioned the involvement of another lawyer on the team, suggesting internal disagreements. This tension underscores the complexities of assembling a defense in such a high-stakes international legal battle.

Fein has been vocal in international media, including Turkish outlets, criticizing the U.S. raid in Venezuela that led to Maduro’s capture. He argued vehemently against what he perceives as an unlawful act, cautioning that allowing courts to condone such actions sets a dangerous precedent. “If you allow courts to benefit from an unlawful kidnapping, you are granting states a license to commit crimes and then claim that the end justifies the means,” Fein stated, emphasizing the broader implications for international law and justice.

But there was just one problem, according to Maduro attorney Barry Pollack, a prominent criminal defense lawyer who reached the plea deal that brought Assange’s long-running Espionage Act case to an end.

Fein was not “authorized” to “hold himself out as” Maduro’s lawyer but did so anyway, Pollack told the judge Thursday in a motion to strike Fein’s appearance from the record.

“I did not authorize Mr. Fein to communicate with Mr. Maduro, a represented party; nor did I authorize him to file a notice of appearance on behalf of Mr. Maduro,” Pollack said in his declaration. Pollack noted that he, not Fein, appeared for Maduro in court Monday when the defendant and his wife Cilia Flores pleaded not guilty. Nonetheless, the attorney said, Fein attempted to enter the case the next day even though no one, including Maduro, “authorized” that action.

“[N]either undersigned counsel, nor anyone acting on his behalf, has authorized Mr. Fein to appear on behalf of Mr. Maduro,” the motion said. “Mr. Maduro has not retained Mr. Fein nor authorized him to hold himself out as Mr. Maduro’s counsel. Mr. Maduro has authorized undersigned counsel to move to strike Mr. Fein’s appearance.”

In a declaration submitted under penalty of perjury, Pollack added that he attempted to contact Fein by phone and email about the “basis on which he entered an appearance” but received no response.

During a “legal call” with Maduro himself on Thursday, the declaration detailed, Pollack confirmed that the high-profile defendant clarified “that he does not know Mr. Fein and has not communicated with Mr. Fein, much less retained him, authorized him to enter an appearance, or otherwise hold himself out as representing Mr. Maduro.”

Instead, Maduro “authorized” Pollack to file the motion to strike, the declaration concluded.

CNN’s Evan Perez reported Thursday, however, that Fein responded by saying of the situation, “It’s a mess,” and that a court filing would follow.

Asked if there was a misunderstanding, Bruce Fein tells me: “It’s a mess.” Fein says he will be filing a response to Pollack’s claim that he didn’t authorize Fein to file a notice to represent Nicolas Maduro. https://t.co/q5UO9tqMmn

— Evan Pérez (@evanperez) January 9, 2026

By Friday afternoon, Fein had filed a response to Pollack’s motion to strike his appearance, and insisted that he was indeed sought out by Maduro’s “inner circle” to take him on as a client.

“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 wrote. “Counsel offers this information not as a factual contradiction of Mr. Pollack’s declaration, but solely to explain the basis for Counsel’s good-faith belief that an appearance was warranted to protect the Defendant’s right to counsel of choice and to ensure that the Court, not interested parties, definitively determines the Defendant’s wishes regarding representation.”

Fein was quick to assert that he “does not dispute Mr. Pollack’s declaration or question the accuracy or good faith of his representations to the Court,” adding that he “makes no allegation of misrepresentation, improper motive, or professional misconduct by Mr. Pollack.” Rather, Fein seemed to imply, word of Maduro’s wishes had simply not reached Pollock by the time Fein filed his request.

Fein acknowledged that he “has had no telephone, video, or other direct contact with President Maduro,” but seemed to point the finger directly at the U.S. government.

“Counsel respectfully notes, however, that President Maduro was apprehended under extraordinary, startling, and viperlike circumstances, including deprivation of liberty, custodial restrictions on communications, and immediate immersion in a foreign criminal process in a foreign tongue, fraught with the potential for misunderstandings or miscommunications,” he wrote.

Maduro’s would-be lawyer asked Hellerstein for an “in camera” — or in chambers — inquiry into the matter. He argued that privacy was necessary because “public airing of attorney-client or representation-related communications could prejudice the defendant, intrude upon confidentiality, or distract from the merits of the prosecution.”

Fein pledged to bow out if Hellerstein decides Fein has no place in the case.

“If the Court concludes that Counsel’s withdrawal would faithfully reflect President Maduro’s wishes, Counsel will do so with alacrity and move on consistent with applicable professional obligations governing termination of representation,” he wrote.

Law&Crime separately reached out to both Pollack and Fein for comment about this confusing turn of events in the early stages of the Maduro prosecution, but no response was forthcoming by the time of publication.