On January 3rd, 2026, US Delta forces illegally abducted the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife Celia Flores, and brought them to New York to stand trial for nocturnal terrorism charges. Maduro pleaded not guilty in the Manhattan federal court on January 5th, calling himself a prisoner of war and denying US jurisdiction over his illegal abduction on sovereign soil. 

Joining us today is Zoe Alexandra, a journalist, author, and editor at The People’s Dispatch. She will trace the chain of events that brought Niccolo Maduro to New York and what it means for New York City, where the case is expected to play out in federal court under the new mayor, Zoran Mamdani’s watch. 

Suchitra Vijayan: I want to start by talking about what set the stage for the illegal abduction and kidnapping of President Maduro. Could you provide some context on what led us to this moment?

Zoe Alexandra: What happened on January 3rd is part of a two-decade campaign against the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela and its leadership. This siege and campaign of destabilization by the United States against Venezuela since it chose an alternative path in the 1998 elections, when Gochávez was elected, has had many different phases. We can point to a lot of them: a direct coup attempt in 2002, in which Hugo Chavez was briefly unseated, but it was actually the people’s power that brought him back to power. It’s had many phases, many chapters, but the last chapter has been one of the most intense. 

After Hugo Chavez died in 2013, the US thought, ‘okay, finally, we’re gonna actually be able to overthrow this socialist project, which tries to use its oil for the betterment of the people.’ A very intense campaign was waged against Nicolás Maduro, specifically thinking that, ‘Okay, he’s not as popular as Chávez, and this is the time to act.’ So for the last 11-12 years now, there has been an even more intensified campaign against Venezuela in attempts to destabilize the government and cripple it through economic sanctions. 

This has all been taking place for the last 12 years within the broader two-decade campaign against Venezuela. Even more micro-looking, we can say that the latest phase as part of this U.S. campaign against Venezuela was specifically with the latest Donald Trump administration. These continued efforts by the Biden administration and the already existing attempts by mainstream media to vilify Venezuela, to accuse it of being part of an international drug trafficking network. Under Trump, this, of course, intensified in the last three months when there was a massive military deployment to the Caribbean.

These accusations that Cartel de los Soles, that Tren del Agua are now the most vicious and strongest drug trafficking groups that are threatening the United States and under that justification these airstrikes were taking place in the Caribbean, threats almost every single day from Pete Hegseth, from Marco Rubio, from Donald Trump himself saying that we’re going to take action against Venezuela—land strikes, air strikes, whatever we want to do—to quote unquote deal with the problem of Venezuela, whether the problem they decide is drugs or democracy or human rights. There’s a lot of different chapters to what has been the US campaign against Venezuela, but I think the most important thing to underline here is that it is part of a two, over two decades campaign. 

So what we saw in the last couple of months is part of that. What we saw on Saturday is part of that. It’s not a change in US policy towards Venezuela, but an intensification.

SV: Can you tell us why this intensification has happened? I know it’s a longer policy, but can you also set the context for this intensification in the past few weeks?

ZA: Donald Trump has made it very clear, whether it’s through his tariff policy or whether it’s through this declaration of ‘we’re going to deport 10 million immigrants here in the United States,’ that he does not believe in waiting. He does not believe in following any international norms, any domestic norms, or really respecting any laws whatsoever. So when you see him and Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth looking at the world and assessing US interests and US prospects, they come up with the National Security Strategy, which was released in November 2025. 

It essentially says, ‘We have to take control and reassert our dominance over the Western hemisphere.’ This means overthrowing in their eyes the projects that threaten US dominance in the region. The Western Hemisphere, referring to the Americas, which many US leaders have referred to as the US’s backyard, reviving the Monroe Doctrine, which says that the Americas are not for the Europeans but are for America. When we say that, we’re obviously referring to the United States. The United States must be the sole power in the Americas to dictate how the resources are used, what political projects are allowed to go forward, and to make sure that this sphere is controlled when the US goes to a greater power conflict with China. 

This intensification, I think, it’s important to see that it’s happening on multiple fronts in terms of the United States realizing, actually, it can get away with murder. It can get away with violations of international law. We saw it happen with the genocide in Gaza, the US and Israel essentially flaunted every single international norm and law, carrying out a genocide in real time with millions on the streets, with many different states condemning this, but no one really doing anything to really, really stop it on the world stage.

The United Nations has proved ineffective in actually deterring the United States and its allies from taking military action. Once that was really made clear to the United States, what is stopping them from carrying forward their true interests to take back the Western hemisphere and their vision? And Venezuela is, in defeating the Bolivarian Revolution is a key step towards taking back the Western Hemisphere and the US being able to have access to the largest oil reserves in the entire world. So, Venezuela has always been a key piece, the US asserting its dominance in the Western Hemisphere, but also in the world.

SV: You were at the indictment when President Maduro was brought to New York. Tell us what this hearing was like, but also provide more context of the things that President Maduro said. He did call himself a prisoner of war.

ZA: On Monday, Nicolás Maduro Moros and Silvio Flores were arraigned before the US court, and the US prosecutors presented a summary of the charges they are raising against the two defendants. This was a massive media show. I saw dozens of journalists and outlets gathered there. This has become a huge center of focus and attention for people within the United States and across the world. The hearing itself lasted about 30 minutes. The summary of the charges against them was presented. And on several occasions, President Maduro used the opportunity to assert, on one hand, that his kidnapping was completely illegal, that it took place during an illegal and unilateral military action against this country that’s completely unprovoked. And also that he considers himself a prisoner of war and a political prisoner, and that currently his rights as a head of state and the privileges that he should be afforded in US custody have not in any way been respected.

Interestingly, the defense of Celia Flores noted that she suffered several injuries during the abduction, which hadn’t been treated. So it was a moment of a lot of tension, but also a moment of a lot of defiance that even within a US courtroom, even within the most powerful military power, actually abducting you and taking you out of your home to a court where in no way, in no reason belong there, President Maluro was actually able to assert himself and send signs of strength to his country, which is currently facing a difficult situation.

SV: In the indictment, President Maluro was also charged with narco-terrorism, right? Can you break that down? Why charge him with narco-terrorism, and why abduct and kidnap and illegally bring the sovereign of a state under these charges?

ZA: Well, narco terrorism is sort of an invented concept, which comes out, is something that’s kind of created in the past several decades by the United States as it’s waging its war on terror and waging its alleged war on drugs. And it’s kind of the perfect synthesis of being able to use the greatest tool that it has, which is the war on terror, and everything that waging a war on terror affords you in terms of legal avenues to pursue, to capture, to kill, while using the rhetoric of war on drugs. What’s interesting to note here is that neither is Venezuela a terrorist threat, nor is it a major player in the international drug trade. 

So most importantly, the charge and the accusation of narco-terrorism is completely false. And the US has shown its hand in not only the indictment itself by not mentioning fentanyl, which has now been classified by the United States as a weapon of mass destruction, if I’m not mistaken, but also afterwards admitting that Cartel de los Soles is not an actual organization and that is a slogan that was popularized by different journalists, to refer to some generals even before the Bolivarian Revolution was in power that were participating and complicit in different drug trafficking operations. But there is no way this massive threat to the American way of life that it’s been alleged in hegemonic media and even by the spokespersons of the US federal government.

SV: Can you just expand on the violations of international law: the various ways in which the abduction, the indictment, and the charges have played out?

ZA: On one hand, you can’t kidnap a sovereign head of state. It’s like all of these really basic things, US law being used extraterritorially. The US now feels backed into a corner because the day after or even within the hours after the operation had taken place, we see Vice President JD Vance saying to all of those who were saying that this was illegal, let me tell you that the US has charges against these two individuals for different sorts of crimes that they have allegedly committed. 

Firstly, just because a US court believes that someone in another country has violated a law does not give them the right to then capture them and bring them to their country to be tried. That is not how the law works. Secondly, there’s zero presumption of innocence; there are all of the legal, basic legal tenets that exist in US law and international law that are being overridden. There’s the violation of even the US Constitution, where the US took military action against another country without consulting Congress. 

This act in itself has provoked the ire of even people in the Republican Party because they know that this Trump has already said, and he told The New York Times in an interview this week, that he only feels accountable to his own moral compass. He doesn’t feel accountable to Congress. He doesn’t feel accountable to the US judiciary, which essentially is an admission that he has no problem violating all of the laws that are set in place. There are violations of US law, there’s violations of international law, and it is setting a new precedent. 

It’s important to point out that there are cases where the US has extradition agreements and where there is cooperation and where there are joint investigations; this is not one of those cases. When Juan Orlando Hernandez was extradited to the United States, it was a completely different situation. Juan Orlando Hernandez faces charges in his own country, and he was eventually arrested and extradited to the United States. There has to be some sort of there’s the United States and all of their talking heads have said, ‘We had the right to do this.’ 

But really, if you think about it, can any other country with complete impunity just decide to be the judge and the jury of people in other countries? No, it is not correct. Essentially, what the US wants to say is that its law is international law. That in itself is also completely false.

SV: In his statement after President Maduro’s arrest, Zohran Mamdani says that the blatant pursuit of regime change does not just affect those abroad; it directly impacts New Yorkers, including tens of thousands of Venezuelans who call the city their home. He’s going on to say that their safety is important to him. Could you comment on his statement? About one, the regime change, but also the local ramifications. How does this affect the safety of the city and the Venezuelans in the city?

ZA: I think it’s important that members of the Democratic Party, including Zoran Mamdani, have condemned the illegal action that the United States took. Notably, the case is still being heard in the US, in the New York Southern District Court, which is a federal court. Trump would, of course, like this to be changed because New York is not necessarily the best jury pool for this kind of case. He would much prefer that it take place in Miami. 

But on one hand, there is the fact that Maduro is being held in New York City. So there’s the impact in terms of him being illegally held, having been illegally kidnapped, and now his own illegal incarceration is taking place in New York City. I think it’s safe to say that tens of thousands of New Yorkers do not agree with the fact that he is being held here and that he is being held at all. On one hand, the Trump administration says that it will take military action against Venezuela. We have no problems doing that, but on the other hand, they’re saying, first of all, he said that Venezuelans are the ugliest people he’s ever met, and second of all, his administration has been the administration leading the charge against Venezuelan immigrants. It was his administration that deported 250 Venezuelans to El Salvador, many of those people simply for having tattoos. 

So, of course, if any more military action takes place against Venezuela, we can already assume there will be impacts in terms of immigration, impacts in terms of people having to flee their homes. There were bombings in civilian areas. The right-wing administration that is in office in the United States essentially has been weaponizing Venezuelan migrants to say, look how dangerous they are, look how bad they are. Even yesterday, there was a shooting in Portland of two people by ICE, and the administration is coming out now to say that, ‘Well, they were just Venezuelans and they were members of Trener Agua.’

On one hand, they’re criminalizing Venezuelan immigrants, but on the other hand, they’re fomenting a situation that will create further immigration. So you can see how these bolts kind of feed into each other because Venezuelans have been the scapegoats in a lot of ways for a lot of xenophobic rhetoric. They’ve been the test case, the guinea pigs for illegal treatment of migrants, completely violating due process, deporting them to a third country, and holding them in a horrific concentration camp known as CCOT. So Venezuelan people have been at the butt of the US policy, whether it’s here in the United States, and the mass deportation campaign and the horrific media vilification campaign that we saw against Venezuelans, even before Trump was in office. 

At the same time, fomenting the idea that everyone in Venezuela, including the president, is a drug trafficker. This seeks to create the ground for people not to care about Venezuelan migrants when their rights are violated, and to not really protest when any of this happens. So, Venezuelan people must be seen as human, not only if they’re celebrating the kidnapping of Maduro, because it seems that those are the only Venezuelan people that the Trump administration and mainstream media seem to care about. They don’t seem to care about the Venezuelan migrants who are being deported, and they don’t seem to care about the fact that civilian areas were bombed by the United States military.

SV: In the aftermath of the kidnapping, Venezuela has a new president in office. How do you view this new power transition? There’s been a lot of talk about making deals, insider deals, but tell us a little bit more about what’s happening in the new president’s office.

ZA: I think it’s really important to address those accusations. And there’s been a lot of talk both from Trump himself, from Western media, and even people on the left saying that somehow the illegal kidnapping of Maduro was some negotiated deal or some backroom deal. Of course, this is completely false, given the fact that for example, 32 Cubans and 20 Venezuelan soldiers were killed defending Maduro. The death toll as of now, as of yesterday, actually, is over 100 from the US attacks. 

So I think first of all, it’s really important to say off the bat that what happened on Saturday was not some sort of betrayal or some sort of sellout, but it was a military operation carried out by the most lethal army in the world. Notably, several US soldiers were injured during the operation. So it’s important to clarify that. And of course, as most political systems go, when the president is unable to serve, the vice president takes over. 

So Delce Rodriguez has been sworn in as interim president in Venezuela, and in every single statement and public address that she’s given, she has not only, of cours,e called for the release and immediate return of Maduro and denounced the US military operation against her country, but also reaffirmed the continuity of the Bolivarian Revolution. There have been announcements of several deals that have been made.

It’s really important to note that on one hand, the Venezuelan government has been in talks with the United States for several years. So there have already been negotiations on the release of, for example, people being held in prison in Venezuela, and US companies being allowed to operate in Venezuela. What we’re seeing now, of course, is those same negotiations happening, which had actually been called off by the Trump administration in July.

Richard Grinnell was told that he couldn’t go back there. He was the US envoy for the talks with Venezuela. Now those talks are resuming, but under very different conditions. Under the conditions of there being 15,000 US troops stationed in the Caribbean, several warships, essentially an armada, and an oil blockade. Now the US is in a much better position to demand greater conditions for the United States.

What’s happening now is really more of a continuation of what Venezuela was engaged in before. They want sanctions relief. They want an end to US threats. They want to really be able to live free and with dignity. Those negotiations will surely continue. But it’s important to note that they are taking place with Venezuela having its back against the wall, having a gun to its head. So I think they’re doing everything possible to avoid further military escalation and further lives being lost.

SV: I want to come back to President Rodriguez when she’s been giving a series of press conferences. One of the things that she describes is that she described the US military operations capturing President Maduro as having Zionist undertones. This she’d said on the televised press conference on the 3rd of January. Again, she’s in the over the last few days, she’s again repeated that calling the attack a Zionist attack and of course demanding President Maduro’s release. What does it mean for her to call both Zionist undertones or Zionist attacks? What is the Israel connection here when we think about the kidnapping?

ZA: Well, I think what’s interesting is to compare the way in which many different strikes against, for example, Hezbollah have taken place, with the US and Israel working with the United States to be able to issue constant threats against the leadership, and then having the exact coordinates to carry out horrific attacks. I think that what’s being evoked here is the reality that when Israel is carrying out these attacks against Lebanon, against Syria, against Yemen, and of course against Palestine, first of all, it has the complete backing of the United States. Secondly, it’s operating as a much superior military power to its adversaries.

The United States is responsible for more than 75 % of world military spending, and has a budget of over one trillion. It works hand in hand with its allies in NATO and, of course, with Israel, essentially as a united unit. We can’t say today that Europe has a different agenda from the United States. It has made that very, very clear: the United States, when it does these sorts of attacks, and Israel, when it does these attacks, have an upper hand that is not even really fair at all. This is a new factor in today’s world. No country has the capacity to confront Israel or the United States militarily. 

So I think that this idea of complete asymmetrical warfare is really important to keep in mind. The Venezuelan people were bombed in the middle of the night, not having made any attack against any nation, not having ever threatened the United States, having demanded dialogue, and yet the United States, being a completely superior military power, essentially lays siege to the capital. I think this is like a very clear connection in that sense of this asymmetrical warfare to be able to say, we know exactly where you are at all times, and we have no trouble using lethal force to achieve our aims.

SV: That brings us to Maria Mercado, who is not only the most recent recipient of the Nobel Prize, but also someone who has publicly praised the US operations that ceased President Maduro. She’s called it dismantling the narco terrorist structures and consistently keeps praising Netanyahu in US public media appearances. What are the local perceptions back home in Venezuela about Macado and how does she resonate to the locals when she is seen as one, praising this? But also how does she fare in terms of ideology and politics in Venezuela to the local people on the ground?

ZA: Donald Trump made it very clear to anyone who had any doubts that Maria Corina Machado is not popular, and she does not have viability as a political leader within Venezuela. And that’s why in the press conference on Saturday, January 3rd, he said, ‘Well, actually, we’re gonna run the country because she’s not very popular in Venezuela.’ So I think if Trump is saying that she’s not popular in Venezuela. I think we have to take his word on that. 

She is a divisive figure. She has been an opposition leader in some respects since the Bolivarian Revolution triumph, since Hugo Chavez won the election. She comes from a family of elites. Her father, I think, was very active in the steel sector, which worked with multinational companies, of course, felt the impacts of a socialist oriented government immediately. She is someone who called possible military actions against her own country an act of love. 

She has consistently advocated for sanctions, which really are unilateral coercive measures, which were responsible for tanking the Venezuelan economy and causing countless lives to be lost, whether it’s through lack of access to medicine and other crucial medical supplies. So she’s someone who said, I have no problem with the United States waging hybrid warfare in my country so long as I’m benefiting. She has benefited greatly. She won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. She’s now seen as kind of this renegade right-wing example for a lot of people in the region and even across the world.

It’s very clear that the Venezuelan people do not respect her, and they know that she is not actually looking out for their needs or their interests. She’s barely feigned this idea that she is somehow out for the people. She’s made it very clear that, I mean, once you say that another country should bomb your own country, it’s pretty clear that you’re not really caring about the people within your country. So she’s been completely discredited, and the fact that even the United States has tossed her out would be comical if it weren’t in the context of such atrocious actions taking place.

SV: One of the things that has been quite alarming is also how the US media has covered not only the various actions against Venezuela, but also the recent kidnapping. As an editor and a journalist, when you see the mainstream framing, how would you break that down for people who might not know anything about Venezuela, whose only knowledge or access to information about all of this comes from the mainstream? Could you break down the key red flags? But also what are the things that we should be looking out for?

ZA: There’s a lot there for sure, but I think it’s a really very important well since this has been the latest kind of charge. I think this idea that the mainstream media has completely adopted, which is really just a talking point of Donald Trump, is this idea that Venezuela is the leader in an international drug trafficking network. If that were the case, then why does the Drug Enforcement Agency not even mention Carta de los Soles in its 2025 report and only dedicate two paragraphs to Trener Agua? 

It just doesn’t actually add up to say that Venezuela is the key node in international drug trafficking. All of the US agencies in their reports make this very clear. Venezuela is not the major node of production; it’s not the major node of transit. And you can look at the US agency reports, UN reports that clearly show this. So I think the first thing is debunking this idea that Venezuela is somehow a drug trafficking haven. That’s on one hand. 

Secondly, there is this idea that somehow the economic crisis in Venezuela is just because there are some greedy and corrupt leaders in Venezuela, and that Maduro is just a really, really bad guy, and he’s just so corrupt. Well, why is it that the economic crisis reached its worst point in 2018, and in 2019, right after the United States sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector? That is the simplest question to start kind of debunking that. Why is it that over a thousand sanctions have been imposed on Venezuela? 

President Barack Obama declared that Venezuela was a threat to US national security. That was in 2015, and I think it still holds no water, but this was the legal framework under which the US has been able to impose countless sanctions, which have destroyed the Venezuelan economy. People are constantly saying, ‘Well, the situation there is so bad, so many people have had to leave.’ And it’s like, yes, and that is because of US sanctions. 

When you are an oil-producing country that relies on oil for your wealth—like many countries in the world, it’s not just Venezuela—when your oil sector faces intense sanctions from your major production partner, that’s going to have an impact on your economy. It doesn’t take an economist, it doesn’t take an academic to understand that. If you look at US reports, The New York Times, The Washington Post, they will almost never mention sanctions when talking about Venezuela. And if they do, they’ll say, ‘Well, government supporters say it’s just about sanctions.’

But that’s not true. That’s just complete ridiculousness. Then I think there’s another aspect that’s talking about democracy and, on one hand, Venezuela has an incredibly vibrant democracy. They’ve had over 25 elections since 1999. They have a communal system. They have local participation. They have many different avenues for how people are actually involved in politics in a way that would blow people’s minds in the United States, because our political participation is so limited to voting every four or two years, and then not being able to demand anything of our representatives, even though they use our tax dollars for war and for policing.

In Venezuela, they actually have a say over how the money gets used and what they want for their communities. So on one hand, the idea that there’s no democracy in Venezuela is a lie. On the other hand, let’s say there were no democracy, which again, I’m not saying is true. That still doesn’t give the United States a reason to invade and kidnap its president.