Table of Contents
The defense team for former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro has informed a federal judge that U.S. actions are preventing the Venezuelan government from paying his legal bills. In a letter dated Feb. 20 to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, counsel Barry Pollack said the Treasury Department’s sanctions office altered an earlier license and thereby interfered with Maduro’s ability to secure counsel funded by his government.
This dispute comes after Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were flown to New York following a U.S. military operation that led to their capture in Caracas on Jan. 3. Both pleaded not guilty at an arraignment on Jan. 5, where federal charges include allegations of narco-terrorism conspiracy and weapons offenses. The legal fight over payment for defense counsel now raises constitutional questions about the right to counsel and practical issues about how sanctions intersect with criminal proceedings.
What the defense says and the role of OFAC
According to the letter submitted by Pollack, the government of Venezuela traditionally pays legal expenses for its president and first lady under Venezuelan law and custom. Pollack stated that an authorization from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) initially allowed the representation and payment, but that Maduro’s license was subsequently amended “without explanation” so that the Venezuelan government could no longer cover his defense costs.
The correspondence claims that OFAC issued licenses for both Maduro and Flores on Jan. 9; however, only Maduro’s license was later changed to exclude government-paid legal fees while Flores’ license remained intact. Pollack asserts this change is blocking Maduro’s chosen counsel and thus violates his Sixth Amendment rights because he cannot otherwise afford the representation expected under his country’s practice.
Legal and constitutional implications
At stake is the intersection of economic sanctions and criminal defendants’ access to counsel. Pollack told the court that OFAC’s amended position effectively prevents the Venezuelan government from meeting its obligation to pay for the defense of its former leader. He warned that if the original license is not reinstated, Maduro will file a formal motion seeking judicial relief to restore the ability of his government to fund counsel.
Case background and charges
The U.S. military operation that ended with Maduro in custody preceded his transfer to Manhattan, where the Southern District of New York is prosecuting the case. Prosecutors say Maduro is implicated in a broad narcotics and weapons conspiracy, listing counts such as cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and related conspiracy charges. Flores faces related charges involving alleged narcotics conspiracy and weapons offenses.
Maduro and Flores arrived in New York after their capture; images from the arraignment showed both escorted by federal agents. The defense now faces the practical and ethical problem of ensuring effective representation while sanctions rules complicate payment mechanisms. Pollack’s letter indicates he has sought OFAC to restore the original license and has not yet received a favorable response.
Potential next steps and judicial remedies
If OFAC does not reinstate the license, the defense plans to seek relief from the court. That could include motions asking the judge to order steps that preserve Maduro’s right to counsel of choice, or to compel the Treasury Department to clarify or reverse its amendment. The dispute could also invite broader scrutiny of how sanctions policy affects legal rights in U.S. criminal proceedings, particularly when a foreign government wishes to finance a defendant’s representation.
Wider implications and unanswered questions
Beyond the immediate courtroom battle, the situation touches on policy questions about when and how sanctions should restrict interactions between sanctioned entities and the U.S. justice system. The defense argues that barring government-funded counsel undermines established expectations and raises constitutional concerns; the Treasury and prosecutors have not publicly explained the amendment to the license referenced in the defense letter.
Fox News Digital and other outlets sought comment from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Treasury Department but had not received an official response at the time the letter was filed. As the case moves forward, courts will likely weigh the competing priorities of national sanctions policy and the principle that defendants should be able to secure counsel without undue governmental interference.
For now, the conflict remains a live procedural issue that could shape how sanctions authorities interact with criminal defendants in high-profile international cases. The defense has signaled its intention to press the matter in court if administrative remedies fail, keeping the constitutional debate and the practical question of who pays for a defendant’s legal defense at the center of the unfolding litigation.