Nicolas Maduro's attorney filed papers in Manhattan federal court Thursday asking a judge to toss the 25-page indictment against the deposed Venezuelan president, arguing the U.S. government has unconstitutionally blocked Venezuelan funds that would pay for his legal defense.

Attorney Barry Pollack contends that the Treasury Department approved payment of Maduro's legal fees on January 9, then reversed itself less than three hours later. No explanation was given.

According to Newsmax, Maduro, who has been in custody in New York since a stealth nighttime U.S. military operation seized him and his wife from their Venezuelan home in early January, pleaded not guilty. He faces a potential sentence of life in prison. So does his wife, Cilia Flores.

The constitutional argument

Pollack's filing rests on a straightforward claim: you cannot haul a foreign head of state into an American courtroom and then prevent him from mounting a defense. In court papers, Pollack laid out the contradiction:

"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 argument has a certain structural logic. The U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control granted the authorization, then yanked it back in under three hours. Whatever internal calculus drove that reversal, OFAC offered no public reasoning. Pollack warned the court that proceeding under these conditions would produce a constitutionally defective trial vulnerable to later challenge.

Maduro himself submitted a declaration to the court stating plainly:

"I am entitled to have the government of Venezuela pay for my legal defense."

He added that he "cannot afford to pay for my own legal defense" and that Pollack "is my counsel of choice." Pollack indicated that if the charges remain and funds stay blocked, he intends to resign so the court can appoint other counsel.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

How we got here

Maduro's presence in a Manhattan courtroom is itself remarkable. The first Trump administration cut ties with Maduro in 2019, recognizing the then-opposition head of the National Assembly as Venezuela's legitimate leader. The Biden administration hewed closely to the same policy. Both administrations treated Maduro as illegitimate. Neither managed to remove him from power through diplomatic or economic pressure alone.

Then came the military operation. A nighttime seizure from Venezuelan soil, and a dictator who spent years thumbing his nose at American sanctions, found himself in a New York jail cell. The indictment alleges Maduro's involvement in shipping thousands of tons of cocaine. These are not parking tickets.

It is worth noting the peculiar irony of Maduro's legal posture. His declaration was signed "President Nicolas Maduro Moros." He insists on the title even as he sits in American custody, deposed and indicted. He demands the privileges of a head of state while facing charges that describe the behavior of a cartel boss. Pollack's own filings refer to him as "Venezuela's head of state," a characterization the United States formally rejected years ago.

The real stakes

Conservatives should watch this case with clear eyes. The capture of Maduro was an extraordinary assertion of American power, the kind of decisive action that years of half-measures and diplomatic niceties failed to produce. That makes what happens next matter enormously.

Pollack's legal strategy is predictable. Defense attorneys are supposed to use every tool available, and arguing that the government sabotaged the defense is a well-worn play. The question is whether a Manhattan judge finds the OFAC reversal troubling enough to act on it. Treasury approved the payment, then killed it within hours. That sequence, whatever its justification, hands a skilled defense lawyer exactly the kind of procedural foothold he needs.

The stronger play for the government is simple: let the man hire his lawyers. Maduro stands accused of flooding American streets with thousands of tons of cocaine. If the evidence supports that indictment, it should survive a well-funded defense. Blocking legal fees from Venezuelan government accounts creates the appearance of stacking the deck against a defendant you already hold all the cards against.

Interestingly, legal fees for Flores, Maduro's wife, were apparently allowed to be paid for her defense. The inconsistency does Pollack's argument no harm.

What comes next

Pollack has laid down a marker. Either the funds get released and the trial moves forward on solid constitutional ground, or the case risks becoming a procedural quagmire that lets a dictator play victim. Maduro spent years brutalizing his own people, rigging elections, and presiding over one of the most catastrophic economic collapses in modern history. He deserves a vigorous prosecution, not a mistrial.

The Manhattan judge now has a choice that will shape whether this case ends with accountability or appeals courts.

Get it right, and a dictator faces justice. Get it wrong, and he gets a do-over.