Why the Maduro case is being compared to the U.S. capture of Manuel Noriega

For only the second time in modern history, the United States used military force to capture a sitting foreign leader and bring him before a U.S. court. Former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro will face charges in New York related to weapons and narcotics trafficking.

It’s easy to draw parallels to President George H.W. Bush’s 1989 capture of Panama’s leader, Manuel Noriega—but key differences remain.

Who was Noriega?

Manuel Antonio Noriega was a Panamanian military officer who emerged as the country’s de facto leader in the 1980s as head of the Panama Defense Forces. During the Cold War, he maintained close ties with U.S. intelligence agencies and was regarded by Washington as a useful regional partner, particularly in efforts to counter Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, which was allied with the Soviet Union. Noriega allowed Panama to function as a logistical and intelligence conduit for U.S.-backed Contra rebels, permitting the transit of weapons, supplies, and personnel and facilitating covert support networks linked to Contra operations. As these activities grew more controversial, his relationship with the United States deteriorated. In the late 1980s, U.S. federal courts indicted Noriega on charges of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering, accusing him of using his position to facilitate cocaine smuggling into the United States. His rule ended with the U.S. invasion of Panama in December 1989; he surrendered on January 3, 1990, and was later convicted in U.S. courts on multiple counts.

Who is Maduro?

Nicolás Maduro has served as President of Venezuela since succeeding Hugo Chávez in 2013. His continued rule has been widely contested internationally, and his 2024 re-election was not recognized as legitimate by most Western democracies and other countries in the free world, which cited ample evidence that Maduro stole an election that his opponent won by 30 or more points. Over time, the United States and other countries disputed the legitimacy of his government, and in 2020 U.S. authorities indicted Maduro and several high-ranking Venezuelan officials on drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges, accusing them of working with international criminal organizations. In early January 2026, U.S. military forces conducted an operation in Venezuela to capture Maduro and bring him to New York to face those charges in federal court.

Venezuela vs. Panama

There are key parallels between the two operations:

  • Use of U.S. Military Force – In both cases, U.S. military force was used to seize a foreign leader on foreign soil.
  • Drug Trafficking Charges as a Legal Basis – Noriega faced drug trafficking-related offenses, and Maduro was indicted on narcotics and narco-terrorism offenses.
  • Legal and Sovereignty Controversies – Both actions raised questions about national sovereignty and international law.
  • Lack of Congressional Approval – There was no Congressional authorization with the removal of Noriega or Maduro.

There are also key differences between the two operations:

  • Scale and Nature of Military Operations – Noriega’s capture followed a full-scale U.S. invasion involving tens of thousands of troops, while Maduro was captured by a small, targeted special forces raid.
  • International Status and Alliances – Noriega became politically isolated after annulling Panama’s 1989 election, prompting condemnation from the Organization of American States and rejection by much of the Western Hemisphere; critically, neither the Soviet Union nor China offered diplomatic or political backing, leaving Noriega without support from either Western or rival great powers. By contrast, the U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro drew sharp denunciations from Western and European governments—including Spain, France, and Germany—as well as Brazil and Mexico, alongside adversaries such as China and Russia, which framed the operation as a violation of sovereignty and international law. Several other U.S. allies did endorse the Maduro raid including Argentina, Ecuador, and Chile, among others.
  • Head of State Immunity – Under international law, sitting presidents are generally shielded from prosecution in foreign courts. U.S. courts rejected Noriega’s immunity claims, partly because he was not recognized as Panama’s constitutional head of state. Maduro’s legal defense is expected to heavily rely on claims of head of state immunity.

The Bottom Line

The captures of Manuel Noriega and Nicolás Maduro are rare examples of the United States using military force to seize foreign leaders and indict them in U.S. courts.

Both cases used military force to arrest a foreign leader for narcotics-related charges. And both operations sparked debate about U.S. and international law.

Whether the courts side with Maduro or treat him as they did Noriega could dramatically shift the future of America’s foreign policy.