legal

Washington, DC – Requests for legal support related to pro-Palestine advocacy remained high in the United States last year, as President Donald Trump threatened activists and universities with penalties.

In an annual report released on Tuesday, Palestine Legal, an organisation that “supports the movement for Palestinian freedom in the US”, said it received 1,131 queries for legal support in 2025.

The figure is below the record 2,184 requests the group received in 2024, when pro-Palestine protests swept US campuses — and were regularly met with crackdowns from both school administrators and law enforcement.

Despite universities enacting new restrictions on protests across the country, the figures from 2025 show that pro-Palestine advocacy has persisted, according to Dima Khalidi, the executive director of Palestine Legal.

“Our 2025 year-end report shows that while universities have largely cowered and caved to coercive pressure from the Trump administration and its pro-Israel supporters, student activists for Palestinian and collective freedom remain a model of moral conviction and courage,” Khalidi said.

“Even when facing punitive consequences for speaking out, they are holding the line of dissent against injustice from the US to Palestine, because they understand the cost of surrender for all of us.”

Palestine Legal said that the “overwhelming majority of requests” for legal support came from university students and faculty in 2025, but a growing number, 122, were categorised as “immigration and border-related”.

The group received 851 requests from people or organisations targeted for their Palestine-related advocacy, as well as 280 more asking for legal guidance on conducting advocacy.

Despite the drop from 2024, the rate of complaints last year remained 300 percent higher than in 2022, the year before Israel began its genocidal war in Gaza on October 7, 2023.

Since then, at least 72,560 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza.

Pressure campaigns

In 2024, Trump campaigned for a second term in the White House in part on a pledge to crack down on the pro-Palestinian protest movement, which sought to shine a light on the human rights abuses unfolding during the war.

He has framed such protests as anti-Semitic, and since his inauguration in 2025, he has led a campaign to penalise schools that played host to pro-Palestinian activism.

To date, five universities have struck deals with Trump after he threatened to withhold billions in federal funding. They include Columbia University, where a pro-Palestine encampment and resulting police crackdown drew international attention.

Columbia eventually reached a $200m settlement with the Trump administration and moved to make several policy changes it said were aimed at combatting anti-Semitism.

Rights groups have condemned such policies as conflating pro-Palestine advocacy with anti-Jewish sentiment. They also warn that Trump’s actions risk dampening free speech, a protected right under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

All told, nearly 80 of the students who took part in Columbia’s protests faced serious academic discipline, including expulsions, suspensions, and degree revocations, as of July 2025.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration used immigration enforcement to target pro-Palestine protesters and advocates, including scholars like Rumeysa Ozturk, Mohsen Mahdawi, Badar Khan Suri and Mahmoud Khalil.

To date, the deportation proceedings against Ozturk, who was in the US on a student visa, and Mahdawi, a US permanent resident detained at his citizenship hearing, have been abandoned.

Ozturk has since voluntarily returned to her native Turkiye after completing her doctoral studies at Tufts University.

The government is still proceeding with deportation efforts against Khan Suri, a Georgetown University researcher, and Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and permanent US resident.

Separately, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided five homes connected to pro-Palestine activists at the University of Michigan in April 2025, sparking outrage. Federal authorities seized properties, but no arrests were made.

Legal victories

Despite the restrictive climate across the country, Palestine Legal hailed a string of legal victories in 2025 that upheld the right to pro-Palestinian protest.

Last August, for instance, a federal court dismissed a complaint that sought to penalise UNRWA USA, a non-profit that supports the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), under the Antiterrorism Act of 1990.

A separate lawsuit launched by Palestine Legal and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) charged that the University of Maryland had tread on the free speech rights of students by banning Students for Justice in Palestine (UMD SJP). That case resulted in a $100,000 settlement.

Meanwhile, federal judges have sided with Harvard University and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), in their challenges to the Trump administration’s defunding efforts.

“The fights that Palestine Legal and our partners have waged affirm that the Trump administration, universities, and Israel advocacy groups cannot, without consequence, run roughshod over growing demands to respect and protect Palestinian rights,” Palestine Legal said at the conclusion of its report.

“The developments throughout 2025 made crystal clear that if we allow our right to stand for Palestinian freedom to be trampled, all of our fundamental rights will be in jeopardy in the face of an authoritarian slide.”

DAVID and Victoria Beckham have offered to meet son Brooklyn with lawyers or therapists to try to end their feud, it is claimed.

Brooklyn, 27, is also said to be considering taking back ownership of his own name — ten years after his mother trademarked it.

The aspiring cookery influencer, who changed his name to Peltz-Beckham after marrying US actress Nicola, reportedly wants to regain control.

It has also emerged that the rabbi at Brooklyn’s 2022 nuptials called him “David” twice.

He has not spoken to his parents in 15 months but reports in the US claim they have offered to meet him with “lawyers, the Peltz parents, siblings, a therapist or a mediator” to heal the rift.

Brooklyn’s devastating six-page Instagram statement in January said the feud had been fuelled by “pressure to sign away the rights to his name”.

READ MORE ON BECKHAM FEUD

BECK & CALL

David & Victoria ‘offer to meet Brooklyn with lawyers or therapist to end feud’

INKED OUT

Brooklyn Beckham shows off tattoo ‘swipe’ at family in racy new shoot with Nicola

He is now said to be considering making a legal move as it is up for renewal in December.

A source said: “Victoria trademarked the Intellectual Property for his full name in 2016-17 in order to protect him, and ensure no one else could exploit his famous name.

“It certainly wasn’t a malicious thing, and the view was that Brooklyn could do with it what he wanted in adulthood.

“But from Brooklyn’s perspective, it was yet another example of control being displayed over him.

“He feels infantilised and just wants to claw back control over the most simple of things — his name.

“He is weighing up all his options but no decisions have been made yet.”

The trademark covers commercial rights in Europe and the UK for goods such as beauty products and toys.

It means Brooklyn would technically need permission to launch a brand using his full name.

Meanwhile, another embarrassing detail from his wedding was revealed by New York-based magazine, The Cut.

It was claimed the football-loving rabbi presiding over the ceremony twice accidentally called Brooklyn “David” after his football star father.

A witness described it as “uncomfortably Oedipal”.

Brooklyn also claimed in his statement that his mother “danced very inappropriately on me” at his wedding.

The Sun first revealed Brooklyn sent Posh and Becks a cease and desist letter last summer, telling them not to tag him on Instagram.

Brooklyn, who has formed a close bond with in-laws Nelson and Claudia, unfollowed chef Gordon Ramsay after his interview with The Sun about the Beckhams’ rift.  

Paramount President Jeff Shell is expected to exit the company after being entangled in a legal battle with a controversial Las Vegas gambler and self-styled “fixer.”

Shell has been negotiating his exit and is expected to leave imminently after just eight months on the job, said two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly.

The veteran entertainment executive officially joined the media company with David Ellison’s takeover in August, though he had been a key member of Ellison’s team for nearly two years as the group worked to assemble the pieces of the tech scion’s growing empire. Ellison’s Skydance Media acquired Paramount and then pulled off a stunning $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery in late February.

Shell brought substantial experience running a media company to Ellison’s inner circle, a group that included former investment bankers and others who haven’t run a large-scale enterprise. Shell also served as a member of Paramount’s board and is expected to leave that role, too.

His exit comes after the high-roller, Robert James “R.J.” Cipriani, sued Shell in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 9, alleging fraud and breach of an oral contract. Cipriani claimed that he provided Shell with “sophisticated, high-value crisis communications services,” according to his suit. He alleged Shell spilled corporate secrets, which Shell has denied, and also failed to deliver on a verbal pledge to help Cipriani develop an English-language version of a Roku TV Spanish music show.

Shell maintains Cipriani fictionalized the two men’s dealings, then spread “false and salacious lies to extract a massive payday.” Cipriani has been seeking $150 million in damages. Shell filed a counterclaim, saying the two men met only twice and that Shell owed him nothing.

The legal skirmish cast a cloud over Shell’s tenure helping lead the company because the Ellisons wanted to stay focused on their Warner Bros. takeover and lining up regulators approvals in the U.S. and abroad. The Cipriani controversy made Shell’s future at Paramount untenable, the sources said.

Shell’s departure comes three years after he was ousted as NBCUniversal chief executive.

NBCUniversal-owner Comcast hired a law firm to investigate him after a CNBC anchor filed an internal sexual harassment claim against him. Shell stepped down, acknowledging that he’d had an “inappropriate relationship” with the journalist, who has since left the company.

The job at Paramount was envisioned to be his second act.

Shell’s dealings with Cipriani began with an August 2024 meeting at litigator Patty Glaser’s Century City office. At the time, Glaser represented both men and urged Cipriani to “cease” his efforts to drum up damaging stories about Shell, who was trying to recover from the scandal that cost him his job at NBC.

Jeff Shell, Paramount Skydance president.

(Paramount / Skydance)

The most serious of Cipriani’s allegations was that he made a report about Shell to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission that Shell had discussed highly sensitive Paramount information with him: Paramount’s proposed $7.7-billion deal with the UFC owner to bring the mixed-martial arts fights to CBS and other Paramount outlets. Shell, in his lawsuit, denied the allegation.

Robert James “R.J.” Cipriani in Amazon Prime Video’s 2025 series, “Cocaine Quarterback.”

(Courtesy of Prime)

Paramount’s brass hired the Gibson Dunn law firm to investigate Shell’s surreptitious dealings with Cipriani. Investigators have been reviewing whether Shell had divulged any secrets. The review is still pending.

“Nobody believed me,” Cipriani said Wednesday. “The best thing I did was cooperate with Gibson Dunn and showed them that the texts were real.”

It’s unclear whether Ellison will look to bring in other experienced media executives or look to senior Warner Bros. Discovery executives following Paramount’s proposed takeover of that company.

WASHINGTON — President Trump spent much of last week railing against the courts. The courts, in turn, spent it ruling against him.

While Trump made history as the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court, where he stared down justices as they questioned his bid to end birthright citizenship, quieter courtrooms across the country were challenging his agenda.

The challenges came in on immigration, on his White House ballroom project, on his own liability in the run-up to Jan. 6.

“Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!” he wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

By Friday, judges had served him loss after loss, each finding the administration had taken executive authority too far, too fast.

Immigration rulings

On immigration, the keystone of Trump’s policy platform, he faced a number of setbacks.

On Monday, a federal judge in California took a step that would allow a class-action lawsuit against the administration’s handling of certain asylum claims. The case concerns thousands of asylum seekers who had made appointments with immigration officials by using a Biden administration phone app called CBP One.

In many cases, migrants from around the world had waited months in Mexico for their turn to speak with border agents after securing appointments through the app.

Those appointments were suddenly canceled after Trump took office. The judge certified those asylum seekers as a class that can challenge the administration’s action in court.

In a similar case, a federal judge in Boston ruled Tuesday that the administration had unlawfully terminated the temporary legal status of as many as 900,000 immigrants who entered the country after using the phone app. Tens of thousands of those told by the administration to leave the U.S. “immediately” have since left or been deported.

The judge ordered the administration to reinstate the legal status and work authorization of those remaining.

“Today’s ruling is a clear rejection of an administration that has tried to erase lawful status for hundreds of thousands of people with the click of a button,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal organization that represented the migrants.

Sanctuary laws

Also Tuesday, a federal judge threw out a Justice Department lawsuit that accused Denver and Colorado of interfering with immigration enforcement and claimed that the city and state’s “sanctuary” laws violated the Constitution.

The ruling found that the federal government had not shown it could override state and local decisions about how to use their own resources. The Constitution, the judge said, does not let Washington commandeer local governments.

“Colorado gets to make a choice: How will our law enforcement operate in Colorado. The federal government, they don’t get to make that choice for us,” Colorado Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser said.

Birthright citizenship

The next day, the Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s claim that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to babies born in the U.S. to parents who are here unlawfully or temporarily.

Conservative and liberal judges alike questioned the arguments of Solicitor Gen. John Sauer, who represented the administration, saying he relied on “some pretty obscure sources,” including precedents that dated back to Roman law.

Trump, sitting feet from the proceedings, left the Supreme Court building halfway through.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote shortly after departing.

Austin Kocher, a Syracuse University professor who studies immigration enforcement, wrote on Substack after the Supreme Court hearing that, on immigration policy, there is always a gap between what an administration says it will do and what the government can actually deliver. That gap, he argued, is particularly evident in the second Trump administration.

“The White House has built its political identity around the promise of mass deportation, and the rhetoric has been relentless: record arrests, expanded detention, military flights, the spectacle of enforcement as governance,” Kocher wrote.

“But over the past several days,” he added, “developments from multiple fronts suggests that the operational foundations of the mass deportation campaign are more fragile than the administration would like anyone to believe.”

Defying judicial orders

In some cases, the Trump administration has been undeterred by judicial orders to stop certain practices. In a March ruling unsealed Thursday, a federal judge found that Border Patrol agents had continued making illegal arrests in California’s Central Valley without reasonable suspicion.

The government’s explanations for the arrests, wrote Judge Jennifer Thurston in Fresno, “rely on unsupported assumptions, hunches and generalizations about the relationship between a person’s apparent status as a day laborer and their immigration status.”

White House ballroom

Trump had kicked the week off March 29 by touting his 90,000-square-foot ballroom project, showing designs to reporters on Air Force One.

“I think it’ll be the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world,” he said. Two days later, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ordered a temporary halt to construction.

Leon stated that the president is the “steward” of the White House, not its “owner,” and ruled that he cannot proceed with such a massive structural change without express authorization from Congress.

In response, Trump raged on Truth Social: “In the Ballroom case, the Judge said we have to get Congressional approval. He is WRONG! Congressional approval has never been given on anything, in these circumstances, big or small, having to do with construction at the White House.”

His administration filed a motion Friday to block the judge’s ruling.

Jan 6. liability

On the same day, a judge ruled that Trump remains personally liable in a civil lawsuit tied to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, allowing those claims to move forward.

It is among the most consequential legal threats he faces.

Trump entered the presidency on the heels of a major Supreme Court win that found former presidents have criminal and civil immunity for official acts during their term.

But Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta deemed Trump’s Jan. 6 speech — in which he directed supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” — was a political act, not a presidential one, and therefore not shielded by immunity.

“President Trump has not shown that the speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties. The content of the ellipse speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity,” Mehta wrote.

The week ended with yet another setback for Trump when a federal judge on Friday blocked the administration from forcing universities to submit extensive data on applicants and students to prove they don’t illegally consider race in admissions.

Reading the losses

For Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA who has tracked the administration’s legal battles closely, the losing streak had a clear through line.

“It was an awful week for Donald Trump,” he said. “It’s not that the courts are anti-Trump. In fact, he wins a lot. It’s really that he takes such an aggressive approach to policy making that he runs afoul of existing precedents.”

Taken together, last week’s rulings signaled that the courts are insisting that the president is as accountable for his actions as anyone, and that states have constitutional powers he alone cannot override.

“The Trump administration’s recent court losses illustrate that there is still much that the other branches of government can do — in connection with civil society — to uphold the rule of law and mitigate the harms of the administration’s destructive agenda,” said Monika Langarica, deputy legal director at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

“They are one more reminder,” she added, “that the administration will not always have the last word with respect to its unlawful and unconstitutional actions.”

Legal groups in Uganda have announced that a dozen deportees from the United States are expected to land in the country, following a deal with President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, the Uganda Law Society and the East Africa Law Society announced they had gone to court to challenge the deportation, which they called “an undignified, harrowing and dehumanising process”.

“We have approached the Courts of Law in Uganda and the region, seeking bespoke reliefs designed to arrest this patent international illegality,” Asiimwe Anthony, the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, wrote in a statement.

“Our perspective of the matter is broader than a single act of deportation. We view it as but one gust from the ill winds of transnational repression that are blowing across our world.”

Thursday’s deportation marks the first confirmed instance of deportees being transferred from the US to Uganda.

The 12 people reportedly landed at the Entebbe International Airport, some 40 kilometres (25 miles) from Kampala, by private aircraft. No identifying information was provided about the deportees.

But the deportation is the latest example of Trump’s far-reaching efforts to offload immigrants to “third countries”, where they have no personal connections — and may not even know the language.

Scrutiny of third country deportations

So far, Trump has struck deals with a number of countries to accept deported foreigners. They include at least six African countries, among them Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Rwanda, Eswatini and South Sudan.

The deal with Uganda came to light last August. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the agreement was a “temporary arrangement” and that priority would be given to deportees from other African countries.

Unaccompanied children and people with criminal records would not be allowed under the deal, according to the ministry’s statement at the time.

It is unclear whether Uganda received payment for its decision to accept third-country deportations.

Other countries, though, have signed multimillion-dollar deals. El Salvador was given nearly $6m to imprison deportees from the US, Equatorial Guinea got $7.5m, and Eswatini nabbed $5.1m.

There is no official estimate about the total cost of these third-country deals, but Senate Democrats in the US have estimated that at least $40m in funding has been given as incentives for countries to accept deportations.

Most of those funds, the Democrats added, were disbursed in lump sums before any deportees arrived. They also note that those funds are separate from the additional costs of the deportation flights: US military aircraft can cost $32,000 per hour to operate.

“Through its third country deportation deals, the Trump Administration is putting millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of foreign governments, while turning a blind eye to the human costs,” Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen said in a February statement.

“For an Administration that claims to be reigning in fraud, waste and abuse, this policy is the epitome of all three.”

Critics have also questioned whether the countries receiving US deportees are adequately safe.

In the past, the US has criticised Uganda for “significant human rights abuses”, citing reports of extrajudicial killings, life-threatening prison conditions, and torture and other degrading treatment from government agencies.

It also noted that Uganda had government restrictions against human rights and civil society organisations, and that consensual same-sex conduct was outlawed.

According to the United Nations, Uganda already plays host to nearly 1.7 million refugees and asylum seekers, as people flee violence in neighbouring countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan.

An ‘authoritarian project’?

In his letter on Thursday, Anthony, the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, called the US deportations part of a “broader authoritarian project” that his group felt compelled to oppose.

“This development and the attendant illegalities that accompany it are reminiscent of a dark past that the global family of humanity supposedly put behind itself in the pursuit of the ideal that every human being is born equal,” Anthony wrote.

He added that US actions under Trump were paving the way for similar policies elsewhere.

“In the United States, the militarisation of society has given carte blanche to captured democracies in Africa to carry on with despotism unchecked,” he said.

Still, the Trump administration has defended the deportations as legal under the US Immigration and Nationality Act, which has loopholes for removals to “safe third countries”.

The Trump administration has also pointed to diplomatic assurances from the “third countries” in question that US deportees would not face persecution.

The “third-country” policy has, however, faced numerous legal challenges. While the US Supreme Court has largely let such removals proceed, a lower court once again ruled in February that the policy could infringe upon immigrants’ due process rights.

In the case of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, lawyers have even argued that his deportation to a country far from home was evidence of “vindictiveness” on the part of the Trump administration.

Uganda has been floated as one of the destinations for Garcia, who was wrongfully deported in March 2025 and then returned to the US in June, only to face deportation proceedings once more.

Trump has pushed an aggressive programme of mass deportation since returning to the White House for a second term in 2025.

At least 675,000 people have been removed under his administration as of January, according to US government statistics.

South Korea and Japan are facing uncomfortable questions about their mutual defensive obligations as the United States seeks support from its allies in the war on Iran, now nearly three weeks in and escalating by the day.

Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump urged the United Kingdom, China, France, Japan, and South Korea to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz, which has remained de facto closed since Washington launched its war with ally Israel on Tehran on March 28.

The president backpedalled on his position on Tuesday – declaring on social media that “we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance – WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea” – but observers say US allies may not yet be out of the hot seat.

Trump is expected to raise the issue of warships when he meets with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi at the White House on Thursday, according to Al Jazeera correspondent Jack Barton.

“People do expect him to put pressure on Takaichi again to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz. It makes sense in a way because Japan is so dependent on energy supplies” from the Middle East, Barton said on Thursday from Seoul.

Japan’s Maritime Self-Defence Force is one of the largest and most advanced navies in the world, he said, which makes it an attractive target for the Trump Administration.

Although Japan and the US share a mutual defence, Tokyo’s pacifist constitution places restrictions on when it can deploy its Self-Defense Force. Legal scenarios include when it is attacked or facing a “survival-threatening” scenario, as well as acting in “collective self-defence” of its allies.

Takaichi told legislators this week that her government is considering what can legally be done to protect Japanese ships and interests, according to Japanese public broadcaster NHK World, although deployment is still a hypothetical scenario.

Japan relies heavily on Middle Eastern oil imports, of which 70 percent pass through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Japanese media. Tokyo began releasing oil from its strategic reserve on Monday to make up for the shortfall.

Stephen Nagy, a professor at the International Christian University, Tokyo, told Al Jazeera it was not unexpected that the US – a treaty ally – would call on it for help, but Japan will need to consider what is expected.

“The question is if they are going to be on the front line of the attack from Iran or if they are going to provide some kind of supporting role, such as anti-mining activities, refuelling missions, maritime domain awareness,” he said.

“It’s not so much of a problem going there and being involved in the challenges associated with the Hormuz Strait; what is more important is what exactly they are going to do in that role. I think the Japanese are going to find a way to legally add value to the Trump administration, but don’t expect warships there fighting Iranian proxies,” he continued.

South Korea finds itself in a similar predicament as it is both a US treaty ally and a country that is heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas exports.

Seoul last week took the extraordinary measure of imposing a price cap on domestic fuel prices for the first time since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, to keep prices from rising too quickly for consumers. Despite their concerns, legislators continue to urge caution from the government in deploying its navy or military assets to the Middle East, according to Al Jazeera’s Barton.

In-Bum Chun, a retired South Korean lieutenant general, told Al Jazeera that it is not immediately clear whether Seoul’s Mutual Defense Treaty with the US applies to the Strait of Hormuz.

Seoul must also weigh helping the US against maintaining a credible deterrence against North Korea. Recent media reports suggest that the US is considering moving some of its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles from South Korea to the Middle East. The missiles were installed to deter North Korea, and their removal, along with naval assets, could make voters nervous.

“Seoul must also consider the persistent threat from North Korea and the fact that a South Korean warship is already deployed to the Middle East,” Chun told Al Jazeera. “At the same time, because about 70 percent of Korea’s oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, freedom of navigation is not an abstract principle but a core national interest. These competing realities must all be weighed before any final decision is reached.”

Caracas, March 17, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration has opposed a motion from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores for the dismissal of US criminal charges on the grounds of the US Treasury blocking their legal defense funds.

In a court filing, US Justice Department prosecutors argued that “the defendants and their former regime” have been sanctioned by the US government for several years and that regulations from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) “expressly prohibit” that funds from a “sanctioned entity” be used to pay a “sanctioned person’s” legal expenses.

“OFAC’s denial of that request does not mean the [US] government violated the defendants’ due process rights. The motions to dismiss should be denied,” the statement read.

Last month, Maduro and Flores’ legal teams urged Judge Alvin Hellerstein to throw out the cases over the US government’s interference with their “ability to retain counsel.” Defense attorney for the Venezuelan president, Barry Pollack, argued that Washington’s actions violated Maduro’s Sixth Amendment rights.

In a sworn statement handed to the court, Maduro declared that under Venezuelan law he is “entitled” to have his legal expenses covered by Caracas and confirmed that Pollack is his “counsel of choice.”

Pollack further added that, on January 9, OFAC issued permission for the Venezuelan government to cover Maduro and Flores’ legal fees, only to withdraw it hours later. The high-profile attorney has announced plans to invoke Maduro’s immunity as a sitting president as part of his legal strategy.

US prosecutors have claimed that the defendants are allowed to use “personal funds” to pay their attorneys’ fees. However, both Maduro and Flores, as well as multiple immediate relatives, are under OFAC sanctions, making it illegal for US persons and entities to engage in financial transactions with them.

The Venezuelan Communications Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Venezuelan officials, including Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, have yet to weigh in on the Trump administration’s efforts to hamper Maduro and Flores’ defense efforts.

President Maduro and his wife, who is also a National Assembly deputy, were kidnapped by US Special forces on January 3 amid a bombing campaign against Caracas and nearby areas. Rodríguez, as sitting vice president, assumed the presidency on an acting basis after the Venezuelan Supreme Court decreed that Maduro’s abduction constituted a “temporary absence.”

Maduro was indicted on charges of “narcoterrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices against the United States.” Flores faces the latter three counts. Both pleaded not guilty in their arraignment hearing on January 5. The next hearing is scheduled for March 26.

Despite reiterated “narcoterrorism” accusations, US officials have not presented evidence tying Maduro and other high-ranking officials to narcotics activities. Specialized reports have likewise found Venezuela to play a marginal role in global drug trafficking.

Following the January 3 attacks and presidential kidnapping, Rodríguez has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump administration. The acting president has hosted several US officials in Caracas while promoting a pro-business overhaul of the country’s oil and mining laws aimed at courting  Western corporations.

Caracas and Washington reestablished diplomatic ties on March 5 following a seven-year hiatus, with the White House formally recognizing Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader” last week. 

Since January 3, Venezuelan government supporters have staged multiple demonstrations to condemn the US attacks and demand the immediate release of the Venezuelan president and first lady. 

US-based solidarity movements have also organized rallies in support of Maduro and Flores, including outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where they are detained.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.