Maduro's Lawyers Demand Dismissal of Charges Over US Obstruction of His Defense

Attorney says Washington is violating Maduro's constitutional rights by blocking funds for his legal defense.

Mar. 21, 2026 at 9:05pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Attorney Barry J. Pollack filed a motion to dismiss all charges against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, arguing that the US government is actively violating Maduro's Sixth Amendment rights and right to due process by preventing Venezuela from financing his defense. The motion cites a sequence of events where the US Treasury Department initially granted Maduro and Flores licenses to receive funds from the Venezuelan state for their legal defense, only to revoke Maduro's license just hours later.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing political tensions between the US and Venezuela, as well as concerns over the ability of foreign leaders to receive a fair trial in the US when the government is actively interfering with their right to legal representation. The outcome could set a precedent for how the US handles the prosecution of foreign heads of state.

The details

Pollack's motion argues that OFAC's actions contradict its historical practice, as an expert testified that he had never seen a denial for such a request before, regardless of the sanctions regime against a state. The defense warns that if OFAC's interference persists, Maduro's lawyers will not be able to remain on the case, and the court would have to appoint lawyers and shift the cost to US taxpayers, making any verdict "constitutionally questionable." The motion cites a 2008 court ruling that the government cannot interfere with the payment of legal fees by third parties without violating the Sixth Amendment.

  • On January 7, Maduro's lawyers requested the necessary licenses from OFAC to receive funds from the Venezuelan state.
  • On January 9, they obtained the licenses - Maduro's at 3:18 p.m. and Flores' at 3:36 p.m.
  • Less than three hours later, at 6:05 p.m. on the same day, OFAC published an amended version of Maduro's license that prohibited the lawyers from receiving that funding.
  • On February 11, Attorney Pollack formally requested that OFAC reinstate the original license for President Maduro, giving a deadline of February 18. There was no response.
  • On February 13, OFAC issued licenses GL-49 and GL-50, allowing transactions in the oil and gas sector.

The players

Barry J. Pollack

An attorney representing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Nicolás Maduro

The President of Venezuela who is facing charges in the US.

Cilia Flores

The First Lady of Venezuela who is also facing charges in the US.

Henry Rodríguez Facchinetti

A Venezuelan jurist who provided a sworn statement certifying that Venezuelan legislation obliges the state to cover the legal expenses of its president.

Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

The US Treasury Department agency responsible for blocking the funds for Maduro's legal defense.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“If OFAC's interference with Mr. Maduro's ability to finance his defense persists, the undersigned attorneys will not be able to remain on the case, nor will Mr. Maduro be able to be represented by any other retained attorney.”

— Barry J. Pollack, Attorney representing Nicolás Maduro

“Mr. Maduro alleges interference by the Government of the United States regarding his right to an attorney under the Sixth Amendment and his right to present a defense, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.”

— Barry J. Pollack, Attorney representing Nicolás Maduro

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide whether to dismiss the charges against Maduro based on the defense's argument that the US government is unconstitutionally obstructing his ability to finance his legal defense.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing political tensions between the US and Venezuela, as well as concerns over the ability of foreign leaders to receive a fair trial in the US when the government is actively interfering with their right to legal representation. The outcome could set a precedent for how the US handles the prosecution of foreign heads of state.