Ben Keith writes for Newsweek: "What Will US Courts Do with Nicolás Maduro?". The article was first published by Newsweek on 21 January 2026.
The images of Nicolás Maduro in a Manhattan courtroom were theatrical, declaring himself a “kidnapped president” and a “prisoner of war,” before a federal judge cut him short. Yet for all the drama surrounding his seizure from Caracas, the criminal case now unfolding in New York is likely to prove far more conventional than either side’s rhetoric suggests.
Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have pleaded not guilty to an indictment accusing them of leading a narco-terrorism conspiracy spanning more than two decades. Prosecutors allege that the Venezuelan state was repurposed as a logistics platform for cocaine trafficking, partnering with groups designated by Washington as terrorist organizations while providing diplomatic cover, law-enforcement protection and even passports to traffickers.
The charges are grave, but they are also legally complex. Proving that a head of state personally directed or knowingly facilitated cartel operations is rarely straightforward. Large international narcotics cases tend to rely on sweeping allegations, while much of the underlying evidence remains classified. That creates a familiar dynamic: enormous exposure for the defendant, paired with real trial risk for the prosecution.
Legal vulnerabilities in the indictment or the evidence could still stall—or even collapse—the case. The indictment has already been amended, and a judge could narrow it further or exclude improperly obtained evidence; if the case reaches a jury, the outcome will turn on what prosecutors can prove in open court.
This is why the most likely outcome is not a jury verdict, but a plea agreement. In complex transnational cases, prosecutors rely on evidentiary asymmetry. Intelligence-derived material, cooperating witnesses and sealed evidence may never be fully disclosed unless a defendant insists on trial. Faced with the prospect of life imprisonment, defendants often conclude that negotiating the terms of responsibility is less risky than contesting every allegation. The narrative weight against Maduro—built over years of indictments, sanctions and intelligence assessments—already gives prosecutors formidable leverage.
Maduro’s principal legal defenses are unlikely to slow that momentum. His lawyers argue that he enjoys head-of-state immunity and that his seizure by U.S. forces was illegal. Both claims may resonate internationally; neither is likely to succeed in a New York courtroom.
Immunity in U.S. law follows recognition. Washington does not recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president, and American courts are reluctant to second-guess that determination. Even where immunity is raised, courts have repeatedly accepted that it does not extend to allegations of narco-terrorism. Once judges focus on the nature of the alleged conduct rather than the office once held, immunity arguments tend to wither.
Nor will the manner of Maduro’s capture derail the case. Many legal experts agree that the raid on Caracas almost certainly violated international law and the U.N. Charter. Yet U.S. courts draw a sharp distinction between how a defendant is brought before them and whether they may be tried at all.
In U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court held that even an unlawful abduction does not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction. In practice, challenges based on illegal rendition almost never succeed unless accompanied by conduct so egregious that it shocks the conscience of the court.
Assuming a conviction or plea is secured, the legal contest will not end there. Argentina has asserted universal jurisdiction over alleged acts of torture and enforced disappearance committed under Maduro’s rule. The International Criminal Court continues to investigate crimes against humanity in Venezuela. Both may seek his extradition once U.S. proceedings conclude.
Here, too, reality is less dramatic than the rhetoric. The United States will insist on completing its own prosecution first. As a non-party to the Rome Statute, it has little incentive to prioritize The Hague. Extradition decisions will turn on sequencing, diplomacy and leverage rather than abstract principle, and custody will become a bargaining chip rather than a purely legal question.
The deeper significance of the Maduro case lies not in the legality of the raid, but in how little it is likely to matter to the outcome. International law condemns the seizure; domestic law absorbs it. Immunity arguments will be rejected, jurisdiction asserted and the case steered toward resolution.
For leaders who rely on contested legitimacy as a shield, the lesson is stark. Sovereignty protects until it does not. Once custody is secured, law follows power, not the other way around.
The full article is available to view on the Newsweek website, here.
Ben Keith is a leading barrister specialising in cross-border and international cases. He deals with all aspects of extradition, immigration, human rights, mutual legal assistance, Interpol, financial crime and international law, including sanctions. He represents governments, political and military leaders, high net worth individuals, human rights defenders and business leaders in the most sensitive cases. He is a leading authority on the removal of Interpol Red Notices for worldwide clients. He edits the Red Notice Monitor blog.
Ben has extensive experience of appellate proceedings before the Administrative and Divisional Courts, Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court as well as applications and appeals to the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations.
Ben has significant expertise in post-soviet states, as well the Middle East and the Far East.
He is ranked in Chambers and Partners as a star leader in the field of extradition at the London Bar and in The Legal 500 as a Tier 1 leading individual in extradition. Ben is also ranked in Chambers and Partners in the field of immigration and in its Financial Crime: High Net Worth Individuals rankings. He is recognised in The Spears’ 500 2024 Guide as a ‘Recommended Immigration Law Barrister’.
