The first appearance of ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a Manhattan federal courtroom marked a dramatic and unprecedented moment in U.S.–Venezuela relations, blending criminal procedure with geopolitics, questions of sovereignty, and allegations of a cross-border military operation. The hearing, held Monday before Judge Alvin Hellerstein, was brief in procedural terms but heavy with symbolism and consequence, setting the tone for what is likely to be a prolonged and highly contested legal fight.
Maduro and Flores each entered not guilty pleas to a slate of drug trafficking and weapons-related charges brought by U.S. prosecutors. At the same time, both defendants used their limited opportunity in open court to assert innocence and to challenge the very circumstances under which they were brought to the United States. Their attorneys characterized the arrests as a “military abduction” carried out by U.S. operatives in Caracas, a claim that is expected to form the backbone of forthcoming motions aimed at dismissing the indictment or otherwise limiting the court’s jurisdiction.
When Judge Hellerstein asked Maduro to confirm his identity, the former president stood and spoke in Spanish, prompting a translator to relay his words to the court. Maduro said he had been captured at his home in Venezuela and, before the judge attempted to move proceedings forward, declared that he remained the legitimate president of his country. The assertion underscored a central tension in the case: whether Maduro should be treated as a private defendant facing criminal charges or as a head of state entitled to immunity and special protections under international law.
Pressed to enter a plea, Maduro again proclaimed his innocence. He described himself as a “decent man” and denied any involvement in the conduct alleged by U.S. prosecutors. His attorney, Barry Pollack, formally entered not guilty pleas on all four counts, while signaling that the defense would soon mount a multifaceted challenge to both the charges and the manner of Maduro’s capture. Pollack, who has experience navigating politically sensitive cases, made clear that Monday’s hearing was only the opening act in what he anticipates will be a complex litigation.
Flores followed a similar path, pleading not guilty through a Spanish translator and stating that she was completely innocent. When asked to identify herself, she referred to her role as first lady of Venezuela, reinforcing the defense’s broader argument that both defendants retain official status and corresponding legal privileges. Her physical condition, however, added another layer of gravity to the proceedings. Flores entered the courtroom with visible bandages on her forehead and right temple and appeared to need assistance to take her seat.
According to her attorney, Mark Donnelly, Flores sustained “significant injuries” during what he described as her forcible removal from Venezuela. He told the judge that she may have suffered a rib fracture or, at minimum, severe bruising, and requested that she receive a comprehensive medical evaluation and any necessary treatment. Pollack added that Maduro himself has ongoing health issues that will require attention while in custody, though he did not provide specifics. These medical concerns could become relevant not only to detention conditions but also to future bail arguments.
Despite the high-profile nature of the case, neither defense team sought immediate release or bail at the arraignment. Instead, they chose not to contest detention for the time being, a strategic decision that allows them to focus first on jurisdictional and constitutional challenges. Both attorneys indicated that a formal bail application would be filed later, once preliminary motions are addressed and more information about detention conditions and the defendants’ health is placed on the record.
Central to the defense strategy will be motions challenging what Pollack repeatedly referred to as an “abduction.” He told the court that Maduro was seized by U.S. military or intelligence personnel in the early morning hours, without the consent of Venezuelan authorities or an extradition process. If substantiated, such claims could raise significant legal questions about due process, the reach of U.S. law enforcement, and whether the court should exercise jurisdiction over defendants brought to the country by force.
Pollack also previewed arguments grounded in sovereign immunity, asserting that Maduro retains privileges associated with his role as head of a sovereign state. While the U.S. government has long disputed Maduro’s legitimacy as Venezuela’s president, the defense is expected to argue that international law, rather than U.S. political recognition, should govern questions of immunity. How Judge Hellerstein navigates this terrain could have far-reaching implications, not only for this case but for future prosecutions involving foreign leaders.
Another issue raised during the hearing was consular access. Both Maduro and Flores requested contact with the Venezuelan consulate, invoking rights afforded to foreign nationals detained in the United States. While consular notification is standard under U.S. law and international treaties, the practical implications in this case are uncertain, given the contested status of Venezuela’s current leadership and Washington’s stance toward it. The court did not immediately resolve how such access would be arranged.
Beyond the courtroom, the arraignment reverberated across Washington and Caracas alike. In remarks made following Maduro’s removal, former President Donald Trump declared, “We’re in charge,” a statement that underscored the administration’s view that Maduro’s absence represents a decisive shift in power dynamics. At the same time, U.S. officials signaled that they would be closely monitoring developments under Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s longtime vice president, who was sworn in as president on the same day as the court appearance.
Rodríguez’s elevation adds a volatile political backdrop to the legal proceedings. For U.S. prosecutors, the case against Maduro and Flores is framed as a long-running effort to hold alleged criminal actors accountable, regardless of office. For the defense and for Maduro’s supporters, it is portrayed as an unlawful intervention that undermines Venezuelan sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent. The competing narratives are likely to play out not only in legal briefs but also in the court of public opinion.
Judge Hellerstein, an experienced jurist, sought to keep Monday’s hearing focused and procedural, limiting extended statements from the defendants while acknowledging that they would have opportunities later to address the court more fully. His approach suggested an awareness of the extraordinary nature of the case and the need to balance defendants’ rights with orderly proceedings. Future hearings are expected to delve deeper into the defense’s motions, potentially including evidentiary hearings on the circumstances of the arrests.
As the case moves forward, several key questions loom. Will the court entertain arguments that Maduro enjoys immunity as a sitting or former head of state? How will it assess claims that the defendants were unlawfully seized abroad? And to what extent will broader geopolitical considerations, though officially irrelevant, influence the pace and posture of the litigation? Each answer will shape not only the fate of Maduro and Flores but also the contours of U.S. authority in pursuing foreign leaders.
For now, the arraignment served as a stark opening chapter. Two figures who once stood at the apex of power in Venezuela appeared in a U.S. courtroom under guard, insisting on their innocence and contesting the legitimacy of the process itself. The legal road ahead promises to be long, contentious, and closely watched, as law and politics collide in a case with implications far beyond the walls of a Manhattan courthouse.
