For years, Venezuela’s collapse has been treated as a tragedy without a remedy. Under failed socialist rule, citizens have endured widespread corruption, violence, election manipulation, inhumane conditions, and rampant crime. The economy systematically crippled as the one-party state, in its quest for control at the expense of its people, dismantled the private sector. To shield this oppression from scrutiny, Nicolás Maduro restricted access to media and television, which prevented both citizens and the international community from learning the full extent of the corruption and abuse. Until now, Venezuela’s humanitarian disaster has remained insulated from accountability, protected by claims of sovereignty and diplomatic restraint.
Maduro’s arrest has sparked widespread international attention. While some criticize President Trump’s decision to arrest Maduro, supporters argue that this framing misses a central truth: Maduro is an indicted criminal under United States law.
That distinction matters.
Maduro has been charged in United States federal court under statutes specifically designed to reach powerful foreign actors who deliberately target the United States. Among them is 21 U.S.C. § 959, which makes it a crime to manufacture or distribute controlled substances intended for unlawful importation into the U.S., and 21 U.S.C. § 963, which criminalizes conspiracy to do so. Most significant is 21 U.S.C. § 960a, the narco-terrorism statute, which explicitly grants extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreign nationals who traffic drugs in coordination with armed or terrorist groups.
On January 3, 2026, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed its Superseding Indictment in United States v. Nicolás Maduro Moros, S4 11 Cr. 205 (AKH)*. Below is an overview of the criminal charges outlined in the document.
Count One: Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy
Statutes:
• 21 U.S.C. § 963 (Conspiracy to violate narcotics laws)
• 18 U.S.C. § 3238 (Offenses begun outside any district)
Allegations:
Maduro and co-defendants conspired to violate controlled substances laws by importing, manufacturing, distributing, and possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances, specifically five kilograms or more of cocaine, knowing the cocaine would be unlawfully imported into the U.S. and U.S. territorial waters.
Count Two: Cocaine Importation Conspiracy
Statutes:
• 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), 959(a), 960(a)(3)
• 18 U.S.C. § 3238
Allegations:
The defendants knowingly conspired to import cocaine into the United States, to manufacture and distribute cocaine intended for unlawful importation into the U.S., and to manufacture/distribute cocaine on a U.S.-registered aircraft.
Count Three: Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime
Statutes:
• 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (use/carry of firearms during a drug trafficking crime)
• 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) (use/carry of machineguns/destructive devices)
• 18 U.S.C. § 3238
Allegations:
The indictment charges defendants with knowingly using and possessing firearms, specifically machineguns and destructive devices, during and in furtherance of the drug trafficking offenses charged in Counts One and Two.
Count Four: Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices
Statutes:
• 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 3238
Allegations:
Maduro and co-defendants are charged with conspiring to knowingly use, carry, and possess machineguns and destructive devices in connection with narcotics trafficking crimes.
Forfeiture Allegations
The indictment also includes forfeiture provisions under:
• 21 U.S.C. §§ 853, 970 (for narcotics proceeds and property used to facilitate drug offenses)
• 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) (for firearms and ammunition used in § 924(c) offenses)
These would allow the U.S. to seek forfeiture of any property derived from or used to commit the charged offenses.
Congress crafted these laws precisely to address situations like this -- when criminal enterprises operate beyond United States borders but direct their harm inward. Geography does not erase accountability when the intent and impact are unmistakably aimed at the United States. The logical endpoint of counterdrug policy includes dismantling the leadership of a drug trafficking enterprise.
Our nation’s willingness to act is not unprecedented. In 1989, the United States captured Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, another foreign head of state indicted on U.S. drug trafficking charges. Noriega was tried, convicted, and imprisoned, a case now widely cited as proof that sovereignty cannot be used as cover for international criminal enterprise.
President Trump exercised his authority granted under Article II of the United States Constitution, which designates the President as Commander in Chief and vests responsibility for protecting national security and enforcing federal law when conventional means fail. When extradition is impossible and diplomatic pressure ineffective, the Constitution does not require the United States to stand idle.
Beyond statutes lies the moral argument. Maduro’s rule coincided with hyperinflation, the destruction of Venezuela’s oil sector, mass migration, and widespread repression. Drug trafficking enriched elites while ordinary Venezuelans faced hunger, extreme poverty, exile, and violence. In this light, the arrest was a step toward restoring Venezuelan sovereignty.
While some deem the U.S. action as controversial, the greater danger lies in the alternative: a world where indicted leaders are untouchable and where borders excuse crime. A foreign leader’s power should never confer permanent immunity. The world is watching and should take note that justice does not end at the water’s edge, and neither should the law.
*Source: DOJ https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/
Dr. Nicole Jones Wadsworth is an economic developer, commercial real estate broker, and Republican candidate for Lt. Governor of Alabama.
Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Alabama Gazette staff or publishers.
Reader Comments(0)