Maduro’s Lawyer Claims US Blocks Payment of Fees, Cites Rights Violation

US Blocks Payment for Maduro’s Legal Defense, Raising Constitutional Concerns

Novel York, NY – A dispute over funding for the legal defense of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is escalating, with his attorney alleging that the U.S. Treasury Department has abruptly reversed course on authorizing payment of legal fees by the Venezuelan government. The development, revealed in a court filing on Wednesday, February 25, 2026, raises questions about Maduro’s right to counsel and the potential for a constitutional challenge, as the former leader faces drug trafficking charges in a Manhattan federal court. The case, already fraught with international implications, highlights the complex legal and political landscape surrounding Maduro’s prosecution.

Barry Pollack, Maduro’s attorney, detailed the situation in a letter to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. According to the filing, Pollack secured an initial authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on January 9, 2026, allowing the Venezuelan government to remit funds for both Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who is also facing charges in the same case. However, Pollack states that the authorization was unexpectedly revoked just hours later, specifically for Maduro, without explanation. This reversal leaves Maduro’s ability to adequately defend himself in jeopardy, according to his legal team.

The core of the dispute centers on the U.S. Government’s sanctions against Venezuela, which restrict financial transactions with the country. Whereas OFAC can grant exceptions to these sanctions, the sudden withdrawal of the authorization for Maduro’s legal fees has prompted concerns about due process. Pollack argues that denying Maduro access to funds for his defense infringes upon his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a cornerstone of the U.S. Legal system. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused person to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.

The Case Against Maduro and Flores

Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores were brought to the United States in early January 2026, following what has been described as a military operation in Caracas, Venezuela, according to reports. The details surrounding their capture remain sensitive, but the U.S. Government alleges they are involved in a large-scale drug trafficking conspiracy. They were subsequently indicted by a Manhattan federal court on charges related to narco-terrorism and international drug trafficking. Both Maduro and Flores have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The case is being presided over by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, a veteran jurist appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. Judge Hellerstein, now 92 years old, is known for his no-nonsense approach and independent streak. He previously presided over the 2019 civil trial involving Harvey Weinstein, and in 2020, he overturned a $19 million settlement in that case, deeming it inadequate for the accusers. His experience and reputation for impartiality are expected to play a significant role in the Maduro case.

Both Maduro and Flores are currently incarcerated in a federal prison in Brooklyn, awaiting their next court appearance, scheduled for March 17, 2026. The prosecution alleges a long-running scheme to flood the United States with cocaine, utilizing high-ranking Venezuelan officials to facilitate the operation. The charges carry potentially lengthy prison sentences if convicted.

OFAC’s Role and the Sixth Amendment

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury responsible for administering and enforcing economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. Foreign policy and national security goals. OFAC’s regulations often require specific licenses or authorizations for transactions involving sanctioned entities or countries, such as Venezuela. Obtaining these authorizations can be a complex process, requiring detailed applications and justification.

Pollack’s letter to Judge Hellerstein emphasizes the constitutional implications of OFAC’s decision. He argues that the government’s refusal to allow Venezuela to pay Maduro’s legal fees effectively obstructs his ability to secure adequate representation. “In refusing to authorize the Venezuelan government to pay the fees of counsel for Mr. Maduro, OFAC is impeding his ability to secure counsel and, his constitutional right—guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment—to be represented by counsel of his choosing,” Pollack wrote. This argument centers on the fundamental principle that a fair trial requires access to competent legal representation.

While Pollack has, for now, only informed Judge Hellerstein of the situation, he indicated that Maduro will file a formal motion requesting the court’s intervention if OFAC does not reinstate the initial authorization or provide a clear justification for its revocation. This motion would likely seek a court order compelling OFAC to allow the payment of legal fees, citing the Sixth Amendment and due process concerns. The legal battle over funding for Maduro’s defense could turn into a significant component of the broader case.

Julian Assange’s Lawyer Represents Maduro

The involvement of Barry Pollack in Maduro’s defense is noteworthy, as he is also known for representing Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in his extradition battle with the United States. Pollack’s experience in navigating complex legal challenges involving international law and government overreach is likely a key reason for his selection by Maduro’s team. His expertise in defending clients against politically sensitive charges could prove invaluable in this case.

The legal team initially faced a challenge when another attorney, Bruce Fein, attempted to join the defense. However, Judge Hellerstein initially approved Fein’s application but reversed course after objections from Pollack, who is the lead counsel in the case. This highlights the importance of maintaining a cohesive and unified defense strategy, particularly in a high-profile case with significant political ramifications.

Potential Implications and Next Steps

The dispute over legal funding adds another layer of complexity to an already contentious case. If Maduro is unable to secure adequate legal representation, it could raise serious questions about the fairness of the proceedings and potentially lead to appeals based on due process violations. The outcome of this funding dispute could also set a precedent for future cases involving sanctioned individuals or countries.

The U.S. Government’s rationale for revoking the OFAC authorization remains unclear. The decision was based on concerns about indirectly benefiting the Maduro regime, which remains under significant sanctions. However, Pollack argues that denying Maduro access to legal counsel is a violation of his constitutional rights, regardless of the political context. The situation underscores the tension between national security concerns and the fundamental principles of due process.

As of February 27, 2026, the next scheduled court date for Maduro and Flores is March 17, 2026. It remains to be seen whether OFAC will reconsider its decision regarding the payment of legal fees or whether Maduro’s legal team will file a formal motion requesting court intervention. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining the course of this high-stakes legal battle. Readers are encouraged to follow updates from reputable news sources and court filings for the latest developments in this ongoing case.