What evidence did the U.S. Justice Department cite in the 2020 and 2026 indictments against Maduro?

1. The 2020 indictment: institutional allegations and cartel partnerships

The 2020 superseding indictment filed in the Southern District of New York framed Maduro and more than a dozen senior Venezuelan officials as leaders of a corrupt, illegitimate government that “leveraged government power” to protect and promote drug trafficking, alleging long‑standing strategic alliances with FARC factions and naming the so‑called Cartel de los Soles as the military‑linked trafficking network that facilitated shipments into the U.S. ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. What the 2020 document said the government relied on (and what it did not publicly detail)

Public reporting of the 2020 indictment emphasized the broad contours—conspiracy with FARC, protection by Venezuelan security forces, and multimillion‑dollar corruption—but the media summaries did not enumerate the specific underlying evidence (wiretaps, seized shipments, witness statements) in granular form; the publicly available indictment text and press reports describe conspiratorial conduct and named co‑conspirators but reporting does not reproduce all investigative exhibits or sources ^{[1] [6] [7]}.

3. The 2026 superseding indictment: new specifics and alleged transactional evidence

The 2026 unsealing expanded on alleged operational details: prosecutors say Maduro’s son met in Medellín in or about 2020 with FARC representatives to discuss moving “large quantities of cocaine and weapons” into the United States over subsequent years, and the text claims Maduro and his circle negotiated multi‑ton shipments, coordinated with Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel and the Zetas, and partnered with Venezuelan gangs such as Tren de Aragua to facilitate trafficking ^{[3] [2] [8]}.

4. Weapons, violence and “state‑sponsored” protection: allegations beyond shipments

Beyond importation, the 2026 indictment alleges that the Maduro regime supplied military‑grade weapons to FARC, operated state‑sponsored gangs to enforce the drug enterprise, and ordered kidnappings, beatings and murders of those who interfered with trafficking operations—charges that upgrade the case from mere smuggling conspiracies to what U.S. prosecutors describe as narco‑terrorism ^{[3] [2]}.

5. How prosecutors framed the evidentiary basis in public statements

U.S. officials and Justice Department messaging framed the 2026 unsealing as building on the 2020 case and emphasized a paper trail of meetings, agreements and operational conduct; Attorney General and other officials described the charges as including cocaine importation, narco‑terrorism and firearms offenses, and DOJ posted a public version of the indictment for review ^{[2] [4] [7]}.

6. Limits of public reporting and competing narratives

Reporting by outlets including The New York Times, AP, NPR and others reproduces allegations from the indictments and highlights new specifics in 2026, but none of the cited sources provide the full investigative record—such as raw intercepts, confidential informant statements, controlled deliveries or forensic chain‑of‑custody documents—so public accounts show prosecutors’ allegations and some meeting details but do not disclose every piece of evidentiary proof claimed by the government ^{[3] [9] [2]}.

7. Political context and alternative viewpoints

Critics warned that unsealing and enforcing the indictment carried diplomatic costs and could complicate humanitarian and political processes in Venezuela, a point stressed in contemporaneous coverage, while supporters argued the charges were necessary to hold officials accountable for alleged decades‑long criminality; those competing framings are clearly present in the public record alongside the charging allegations ^{[1] [10]}.