In an unexpected twist during the early days of the Trump administration’s case against Venezuela’s former leader, Nicolas Maduro, two prominent lawyers have joined his defense team. Interestingly, one of these legal experts, known for defending Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame, is now questioning the involvement of the other attorney.

The situation unfolded on Tuesday when Bruce Fein, who previously served as associate deputy attorney general and FCC general counsel under Ronald Reagan, submitted a motion to join the case pro hac vice, a legal term allowing temporary participation in a court where the lawyer is not licensed. Typically, obtaining such permission is a routine process for attorneys in good standing.

Federal judges frequently approve pro hac vice requests, and Senior U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein did just that the following day. He granted Fein the right to participate in the case in the Southern District of New York, stating, “It is hereby ordered that Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in the above-captioned case.”

Following this, the media erupted with headlines announcing, “Maduro hires Reagan-era DOJ attorney in narco-terrorism case” and “Venezuela’s Maduro Adds Ex-Reagan Era DOJ Lawyer to Legal Team.” Social media also buzzed with posts on X highlighting the addition of a “constitutional law mastermind” to Maduro’s defense.

Fein’s involvement drew international attention, as he was extensively quoted in Turkish media, which referred to him as “Maduro’s lawyer.” He commented on the U.S. operation in Venezuela aimed at capturing and arresting Maduro, further amplifying his profile in the case.

“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,” he reportedly said. “At that point, no one will be safe.”

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.