The arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, has sent shockwaves through the global diplomatic community. In a daring covert operation dubbed “Operation Absolute Resolve,” U.S. special forces seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Caracas and transported them to the United States to face federal narco-terrorism charges.
Advertisement
For legal scholars and historians, the move was not a surprise. It was the execution of a strategy built 36 years ago to the day: the Noriega Precedent.
The Historical Mirror: Noriega and Maduro
The parallels between the 1990 capture of Manuel Noriega and the 2026 capture of Nicolás Maduro are striking. Both cases represent the rare instances where the United States has used military force to arrest a foreign leader on criminal—rather than political—charges.
1. The Legal “Anchor”: Narco-Terrorism Indictments
The U.S. government’s ability to arrest both men rested on criminal indictments rather than a formal declaration of war.
-
Noriega (1988): Indicted for facilitating the Medellín Cartel’s cocaine shipments.
-
Maduro (2020/2026): Indicted for leading the “Cartel of the Suns,” a criminal organization composed of high-ranking Venezuelan officials who allegedly used cocaine as a “weapon” to flood the U.S. market.
2. The Doctrine of “Forcible Abduction.”
The U.S. has invoked a controversial legal opinion first drafted by Bill Barr in 1989. This doctrine argues that the U.S. government has the authority to carry out “forcible abductions” of fugitives in foreign countries to enforce domestic laws, even if those arrests violate international treaties or local sovereignty.
3. Disputed Status
In both cases, the U.S. avoided the protection of “Head of State Immunity” by challenging the leaders’ legitimacy:
-
In 1989, the U.S. argued Noriega was a military usurper, not a constitutionally elected president.
-
In 2026, the Trump administration leveraged the disputed 2024 Venezuelan election results to argue Maduro was a “citizen” and a “usurper,” not a protected head of state.
Advertisement
How the Noriega Precedent Shapes Maduro’s Trial
Because the U.S. successfully prosecuted Noriega in Miami in 1992, prosecutors in New York (where Maduro is currently held) have a “playbook” for the coming years:
The “Ker-Frisbie” Doctrine
Maduro’s defense team, led by high-profile attorney Barry Pollack, has already argued that Maduro’s capture was an illegal “abduction.” However, the Noriega case solidified the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine in U.S. courts. This rule states that how a defendant is brought before the court (even if kidnapped) does not affect the court’s jurisdiction to try them. If Noriega couldn’t use his “abduction” as a defense, Maduro likely won’t be able to either.
Prisoner of War (POW) Status
In a move mirroring Noriega’s legal strategy, Maduro has already declared himself a “Prisoner of War.” Noriega was the first person in U.S. history to be convicted while being granted POW status under the Geneva Convention. If Maduro is granted this status:
-
He would be entitled to better prison conditions.
-
He would be allowed to wear his military/official regalia in certain settings.
-
He would have specific rights regarding mail and visitations.
How it Could Go: The Road Ahead
The Noriega case lasted nearly three years from capture to conviction. The Maduro case is expected to be even more complex.
-
The Power Vacuum: Unlike Panama in 1989, which the U.S. occupied and stabilized, the Caracas raid was a “snatch-and-grab.” This leaves Venezuela in a precarious state with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López still in power, potentially leading to a negotiated transition or further conflict.
-
The Evidence: Prosecutors claim to have thousands of hours of intercepted communications and testimony from former “Cartel of the Suns” members who have defected over the last decade.
-
The Verdict: If convicted, Maduro faces a mandatory minimum of 30 years to life in prison. Following the Noriega timeline, he would likely serve his sentence in a high-security federal facility (like ADX Florence) before potentially being extradited to other countries or his home nation if a new government demands it.
Conclusion: A New Era of Extraterritorial Justice?
The arrest of Nicolás Maduro signals that the U.S. has officially revived the “policing” role it took in the late 1980s. By using the Noriega case as a foundation, the United States is asserting that “sovereign immunity” does not protect leaders from criminal charges involving drug trafficking or terrorism.
The world now watches to see if this will lead to a more democratic Venezuela—or a new era of “legalized” military interventions in the Western Hemisphere.