The case “USA vs. Maduro”: Legal analysis of the 2026 operation

On January 3, 2026, the geopolitical map of Latin America changed irreversibly. A special operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, carried out by American security forces, not only decapitated the Venezuelan regime but also created a unique precedent in international law. Maduro’s capture by U.S. special operations forces in Caracas has drawn comparisons to the 1989 U.S. capture of former president Manuel Noriega in Panama, highlighting the United States’ history of prosecuting foreign leaders, including Noriega and Muammar Gaddafi. This operation, authorized by the White House, has been widely criticized by other countries and the international community as a violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. While world capitals were digesting the news about the transfer of “Prisoner No. 1” to New York, lawyers and political scientists began analyzing the mechanisms that allowed Washington to implement a scenario that just a year ago seemed like the plot of a Hollywood action movie.

The central element of this story was not so much military logistics as the legal framework prepared by the Southern District of New York. The status “Captured,” which appeared on the State Department’s website, drew a line under a decade of diplomatic maneuvers. The U.S. government and State Department have not recognized Nicolás Maduro as Venezuela’s head of state since 2019, impacting the legal proceedings and allowing U.S. courts to prosecute him as they did with Noriega, a precedent in American justice. The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Maduro in 2020 on charges of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism conspiracy, and under the Trump administration, President Trump increased the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million—the largest ever for a foreign head of state.

After Maduro’s arrest, he and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken into federal custody in New York City and pleaded not guilty to federal criminal charges during their first court appearance on January 5, 2026. The next court proceeding for Maduro is scheduled for March 17, 2026. The international community’s response to Maduro’s capture has been mixed, with some countries condemning the U.S. action and others remaining silent or supportive. Now the fate of the Bolivarian Republic is being decided not in the Miraflores Palace but in a federal courtroom in Manhattan.

The Southern District of New York (SDNY) Prosecutor’s Office, known for its uncompromising stance in cases against “white-collar” criminals and terrorists, prepared an indictment long before the operation. The legal conflict here is evident. Traditional extradition is a dialogue between two states. The operation on January 3 was a monologue of force, where a national court warrant was executed by military methods on foreign territory. The legal precedent set by the capture of Noriega is often cited in such cases, as U.S. courts have historically allowed prosecutions of foreign leaders not recognized as legitimate heads of state by the U.S. government.

The U.S. justified the military operation by arguing that Maduro was not the legitimate head of state, similar to the rationale used in the Noriega case. The U.S. Department of Justice charged Maduro with federal criminal charges, including narcotics trafficking and narco terrorism conspiracy, mirroring the charges brought against Noriega. These federal charges and criminal charges have been described by some as politically motivated, given the broader implications for international law and diplomatic relations.

The absence of an Interpol red notice in this case is not a coincidence but a systemic pattern. The charter of this organization, based in Lyon, contains strict safeguards. Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution categorically prohibits interference in matters of a political, military, or racial nature. In fact, the lack of a red notice is partly due to concerns that the charges and pursuit of Maduro are considered politically motivated, which Interpol’s constitution explicitly prohibits.

Lawyers of the international police classified the pursuit of Maduro as a case with a high political component. Interpol avoids situations where its resources could be used for regime changes. Washington understood this perfectly. Therefore, the bet was placed not on an international search, which could delay the process for years, but on a direct reward of 50 million dollars and its own force resources.

The doctrine of head of state immunity stands as one of the cornerstones of international law, designed to shield sitting heads of state and other high-ranking officials from prosecution or civil litigation in foreign courts. This principle, rooted in the sovereign equality of nations, aims to preserve the political independence and territorial integrity of every country, preventing the judicial systems of one state from interfering in the affairs of another. Yet, as the case of Nicolás Maduro demonstrates, the boundaries of this immunity are increasingly tested in a world where transnational organised crime and narco terrorism are seen as threats to global security.

Maduro’s dramatic capture by US special operations forces has ignited a fierce debate among legal scholars and diplomats. The US government contends that Maduro’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking and narco-terrorism strips him of the protections typically afforded to a sitting head of state. By framing the charges as violations of international law—specifically, crimes that threaten the national security of the United States and the international community—Washington argues that immunity cannot be used as a shield for unlawful actions on such a scale.

However, this position is far from universally accepted. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have both recognized head of state immunity as a fundamental principle, only to be set aside in cases of the gravest international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Even then, the process for lifting immunity is complex and typically requires the involvement of international institutions, not unilateral military intervention by one country. Critics argue that the US military operation violated international law by enforcing domestic law on foreign soil without the consent of Venezuela or the authorization of the UN Security Council.

Legal precedent offers both parallels and contrasts. The 1989 capture of former Panamanian president Manuel Noriega by US forces is often cited, but Noriega’s status as a recognized head of state had already been challenged by the international community. In contrast, Maduro’s government, despite being contested, retained recognition from major powers such as China, Russia, and Cuba at the time of his arrest. The comparison to the capture of Saddam Hussein by US forces in 2003 is also instructive, but again, the context differs: Hussein’s regime had collapsed, and he was no longer the sitting head of state.

The international reaction to Maduro’s arrest has been swift and polarized. Countries including China, Russia, and Cuba have condemned the US action as a violation of international law and an affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty. Many foreign ministers and legal experts warn that this sets a dangerous legal precedent, potentially justifying future military interventions against foreign leaders under the guise of combating transnational organised crime or narco terrorism.

Beyond the courtroom, the implications for international relations and the global oil market are profound. Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and its role in OPEC mean that any shift in political power reverberates through energy markets worldwide. The uncertainty surrounding Maduro’s fate and the legal status of his government has already influenced oil production strategies and the calculations of major energy companies.

The case also raises uncomfortable questions about the role of the International Criminal Court ICC and other international institutions. While the ICC is tasked with prosecuting the world’s most serious crimes, its authority is often challenged by powerful states, as seen in recent US sanctions against ICC officials. The Maduro case underscores the limitations of international law when confronted by the political will and military force of a superpower.

Ultimately, the legal battle over head of state immunity in the Manhattan court will shape not only the future of Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, but also the evolving norms of international law. As the world watches, the outcome will set a precedent for how far one country can go in pursuing criminal indictments against foreign leaders accused of narco terrorism and drug trafficking—potentially redrawing the boundaries of sovereignty, immunity, and the rule of law in the 21st century.

The basis of the criminal prosecution lies in the concept of narcoterrorism. The American investigation claims that under Maduro’s leadership, Venezuela has turned into a hub for global drug trafficking, managed by the so-called “Cartel of the Suns” (Cártel de los Soles). The name refers to the golden stars (suns) on the epaulets of Venezuelan generals, allegedly controlling cocaine flows. The U.S. government has accused Maduro and other Venezuelan leaders and Venezuelan officials of being involved in narcotics trafficking and a narco terrorism conspiracy with Colombian guerrilla groups, such as FARC.

Federal prosecutors have systematized the evidence base covering the period from the 2010s to the present. The indictment includes the following key episodes:

This evidence base shifts the case from the realm of “political repression” to the category of combating organized crime, which significantly complicates the defense’s work.

January 5, 2026, was marked by the first appearance of Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores before the court. The session took place in a tense atmosphere, and the security measures around the courthouse resembled a state of siege. The press’s attention was focused not only on the defendants but also on the figure of their defense attorney. During this initial court appearance in New York, former president Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, pleaded not guilty to federal criminal charges, including drug trafficking. The case has drawn international attention due to the high-profile criminal charges and the implications for international law and immunity. The arrest itself is being challenged by the defense.

The defense line will likely be built on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Maduro’s legal team, led by attorney Barry Pollack, is expected to argue that as a former head of state, he has head-of-state immunity from prosecution. The prosecution, however, will appeal to the fact that the status of a “narco-terrorist” and the loss of legitimacy after the disputed 2024–2025 elections deprive him of this privilege.

Maduro is currently in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn. This facility has a reputation as one of the harshest detention centers in the federal system. Lack of contact with the outside world, round-the-clock video surveillance, and solitary confinement — this is the new reality for a person who not long ago governed a country with the largest oil reserves.

In Venezuela, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as interim president on January 5, 2026, after the Venezuelan Supreme Court denounced Maduro’s removal as a kidnapping.

The arbitrary arrest of the Venezuelan leader instantly impacted global markets. Venezuela’s state-owned oil company plays a very important role in the global oil market, influencing energy security and international revenue strategies. Traders froze in anticipation, trying to understand how the change of power in Caracas would affect energy exports. While sanctions previously stifled the oil industry, now a window of opportunity opens for the return of Venezuelan oil to the global market, but already under the control of a new, West-loyal government. Other countries are closely monitoring the situation due to its potential impact on global energy supplies, especially as major geopolitical conflicts—sometimes described as ‘world wars’—can have significant impacts on oil prices and energy security.

Analysts predict a difficult transitional period. The power vacuum in Caracas may lead to temporary instability, but in the long term, Maduro’s capture signals a possible end to Venezuela’s isolation. Major players like Chevron are already preparing plans to expand production, counting on the lifting of the embargo by the new administration.

The events of January 2026 proved that in the modern world, the concept of sovereignty becomes permeable when it comes to global threats defined by superpowers. The Maduro case will become a textbook example for international lawyers, demonstrating how national interests can reshape the boundaries of what is permissible in world politics.