Share and Follow
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 has taken steps to dismiss his narco-terrorism charges, arguing that actions by the Trump administration have rendered any potential verdict legally questionable.
In a submission to Senior U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Barry Pollack, a seasoned defense lawyer known for his work with Julian Assange, requested permission to withdraw from representing Maduro if the judge does not dismiss the charges.
Pollack highlighted that, under Venezuelan law, the government should cover Maduro’s legal expenses. However, the U.S. government has obstructed this funding, effectively denying Maduro his preferred legal representation and potentially shifting the financial burden to U.S. taxpayers.
The letter stated, “The United States government, through the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), initially permitted Mr. Maduro’s chosen legal team to receive funds from Venezuela for his defense. Yet, without explanation, OFAC later revised this license to prevent the use of Venezuelan government funds for his legal costs.”
Pollack also asserted that Maduro lacks personal resources to hire his own legal team, and accused the Trump administration of unjustly interfering with his right to due process by blocking his defense funding.
In the end, it could mean that Pollack will have no choice but to withdraw, and that would make “any verdict” against Maduro “constitutionally suspect,” the lawyer stated.
“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.