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. 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. Now the fate of the Bolivarian Republic is being decided not in the Miraflores Palace but in a federal courtroom in Manhattan.
Jurisdiction without borders: why extradition was not required
Many experts mistakenly expected the process to begin with lengthy extradition requests through third countries. However, the U.S. strategy was based on the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction. American legislation, in particular the “Patriot Act” and norms for combating narco-terrorism, allows for the prosecution of foreign citizens if their actions directly harm the security of the United States, even if the crimes are committed outside the country.
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.
Interpol and “Political Clause”
The absence of a 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.
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.
“Cartel of the Sun”: version of the accusation by the American prosecutor’s office
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.
Federal prosecutors have systematized the evidence base covering the period from the 2010s to the present. The indictment includes the following key episodes:
- Collusion with FARC: The use of militants from the Colombian group to ensure the security of drug transit routes through the Venezuelan border;
- Use of state infrastructure: Providing military airbases for the takeoff of planes loaded with cocaine, heading to Central America and further to the USA;
- Financial manipulations: Money laundering of drug dollars through the state oil company PDVSA and the currency control system.
This evidence base shifts the case from the realm of “political repression” to the category of combating organized crime, which significantly complicates the work of the defense.
Brooklyn Proceedings
January 5, 2026, was marked by the first appearance of Nicolás 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. Benjamin Brafman, a legend of New York law practice, took on a task that seems impossible — to challenge the legality of the arrest itself.
The defense line will likely be built on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Brafman will argue that at the time of his detention, Maduro was the acting head of state recognized by the UN, which makes him immune to foreign courts. 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.
Economic consequences: oil in the context of the sanctions regime
The arrest of the Venezuelan leader instantly impacted global markets. 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.
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.
