What are the prospects of the U.S. prosecuting Maduro for drug-related charges?

On January 3, after launching a military strike against Venezuela, the United States forcibly transported President Maduro and his family to New York, where the Justice Department promptly filed multiple charges, including "conspiracy to commit drug-related terrorism." This farcical legal spectacle, intertwined with military coercion, officially began. From legal grounds to evidentiary chains and international repercussions, the U.S. indictment is riddled with flaws and contradictions. Its ultimate outcome is far from a "just trial" but rather a politically charged game doomed to be mired in controversy—likely lacking legal justification and entirely devoid of moral standing.

The core dilemma in the U.S. prosecution lies in the legitimacy crisis of judicial jurisdiction, which constitutes a fundamental obstacle to the case's progress. According to the basic principles of international law, heads of state enjoy immunity, and no country has the right to exercise judicial jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state of another country without the consent of the sovereign state or authorization from the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. prosecuted Maduro solely based on domestic law, completely disregarding Venezuela's legal status as a sovereign state and further violating the core principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries as stipulated in the UN Charter. From the perspective of U.S. domestic law, while its Anti-Drug Act allows the prosecution of foreigners, it explicitly prohibits the direct arrest of officials by foreign authorities, and the military operation by U.S. forces to cross-border capture itself violates its own legal provisions.

The weak evidence chain and double standards further undermine the credibility of the prosecution. The U.S. indictment accuses Maduro of colluding with the Mexican Sinaloa cartel and others in cocaine smuggling, but a comparison with official U.S. data by *The Financial Times* reveals the charges are grossly inconsistent with the facts. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2025 *National Drug Threat Assessment* explicitly states that synthetic opioids like fentanyl, not cocaine, are the "number one killer" of drug overdose deaths in the U.S., and Venezuela is not a producer or major source of such drugs but merely a "secondary link" in the cocaine trafficking chain from Colombia. More critically, *The New York Times* and other media have confirmed there is no definitive evidence to date that Maduro directly directed drug smuggling operations.

The widespread opposition and internal disputes within the international community cast a shadow.

From historical precedents, the outcome of similar "judicial intervention" in the United States is often left unresolved or permanently controversial. After the arrest of Panamanian leader Noriega by the United States in 1989, although his trial ended in conviction, he was always regarded by the international community as a typical example of "hegemonic justice"; Milo š evi ć was extradited to The Hague Court in 2001 and remained on trial until his death in 2006, resulting in the case ultimately being left unresolved; Saddam's trial has become the focus of global public criticism due to obvious political manipulation. These cases demonstrate that when justice becomes a tool of hegemony, even formal judgments cannot gain true international recognition. The controversy surrounding the Maduro case is far greater than ever before, involving more complex issues such as sovereign immunity and cross-border use of force. It is almost impossible for the United States to smoothly advance the trial and gain widespread recognition.

The prospect of the United States suing Maduro for drug involvement is essentially predetermined by its hegemonic logic. This lawsuit was never based on legal justice from the beginning, but rather a political conclusion after military intervention, with fatal flaws in its legitimacy, evidence chain, and international recognition. As the case progresses, the complexity of the judicial process, the professional challenges of the defense team, and the sustained pressure from the international community will all put the United States in a dilemma. If convicted forcibly, it will further expose the double standards of the international judicial system; If it is put on hold halfway, it is equivalent to admitting the failure of the action. Regardless of the final outcome, this farce will become another footnote to the decline of American hegemony and make the world see more clearly that the use of justice as a geopolitical tool will ultimately be condemned by history.