Who is Juan Hernandez and what crime was he convicted of?
Executive summary
Juan Orlando Hernández — often referred to as JOH — is the former two-term president of Honduras who was extradited to the United States, tried and convicted in 2024 for drug trafficking and related firearms offenses, and sentenced to 45 years in prison [1] [2]. Prosecutors said he conspired to import hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States and used his office to protect traffickers; Hernández has denied the charges as political persecution and was later pardoned and released in late 2025 amid international controversy [1] [3] [4] [5].
1. Who Juan Orlando Hernández is: the political rise and profile
Juan Orlando Hernández served as a dominant conservative leader in Honduras — rising from head of congress to serve two presidential terms from 2014 to 2022 — and was long seen as a central figure in Honduran politics before his extradition to the United States in April 2022 [1] [6]. He was widely known by the initials “JOH” and led the National Party during a period when critics accused his administration of consolidating power over institutions including the judiciary and electoral authorities, a pattern prosecutors later cited as context for how traffickers allegedly operated within the state [6] [7].
2. The charges, trial and conviction in U.S. court
A federal jury in Manhattan convicted Hernández on March 8, 2024, of conspiring to import large quantities of cocaine into the United States and related weapons offenses, including possession and conspiracy to possess destructive devices such as machine guns; the Southern District of New York and the Department of Justice framed the case as involving the movement of more than 400 tons of cocaine [1] [2] [3] [8]. Prosecutors secured a 45-year prison sentence on June 26, 2024, and ordered fines and supervised release as part of the federal judgment [1] [2].
3. The government’s evidence and the prosecution narrative
U.S. prosecutors built the case on testimony from multiple witnesses, corroborating phone records, a recovered drug ledger, and the convictions of co-conspirators — most notably Hernández’s brother, Juan Antonio “Tony” Hernández, and trafficker Geovanny Fuentes Ramírez — arguing that Hernández used his office to protect and facilitate mass cocaine shipments and to receive or enable corrupt payments that sustained those operations [3] [1] [2] [7]. The Department of Justice described the scheme as one that sent “billions of individual doses” to the U.S. and emphasized cooperation across U.S. law enforcement units in the investigation [1].
4. Hernández’s defense, political context and competing narratives
Hernández has consistently denied criminal responsibility, calling the case political persecution and arguing investigative shortcomings; supporters and some Honduran political actors have echoed claims he was “set up,” while human-rights and anti-corruption observers have emphasized the trial’s evidentiary basis and broader concerns about state capture by criminal networks [3] [4] [9]. The complexity of a former head of state being tried in U.S. court produced competing agendas: U.S. prosecutors framed the conviction as accountability for transnational crime, whereas Hernández and allies framed it as an attack with geopolitical undertones — an argument amplified after his later pardon [1] [4] [7].
5. Where the case stands now and wider implications
After extradition and conviction, Hernández began serving the 45‑year sentence imposed in June 2024, but was unexpectedly pardoned by U.S. President Donald Trump and released in late 2025 — a move that prompted renewed debate about accountability, U.S. foreign policy, and rule-of-law consequences in the region; Honduran authorities also pursued separate national charges and issued arrest warrants after the pardon, underlining that legal and political fallout continues on multiple fronts [1] [5] [4] [10]. The case remains a touchstone for discussions about cartel influence in state institutions, the prosecution of former heads of state, and the geopolitical consequences of executive clemency [7] [11].