Charging a foreign head of state under a 1934 U.S. gun law turns the rule of law into international ridicule
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro arrives at DEA’s NYC HQ following his arrest in Venezuela.
By Ya Libnan Editorial bord, Op.Ed.
One of the most astonishing charges in the indictment against Venezuela’s president and his wife is “possession of machine guns and destructive devices; and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.” Let that sink in. The United States is prosecuting the sitting president of a sovereign nation under a 1934 domestic firearm statute—as if he were a local criminal operating within U.S. jurisdiction.
This is not how a serious country behaves. America is not a third-world state, and its courts are supposed to uphold constitutional restraint, not political theater dressed up as law enforcement.
Even conservative voices in Washington recognized the absurdity. Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, openly blasted the move, calling out its legal incoherence.
“If this action were constitutionally sound,” Massie wrote on X, “the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.”
Massie is right. This is not law—it is legal farce. U.S. courts are now being dragged into enforcing statutes never intended to apply beyond American borders, let alone to foreign heads of state. Such actions do not strengthen the rule of law; they undermine it, eroding America’s credibility and making its justice system look politicized and reckless.
If the United States wants to promote democracy, accountability, and respect for international norms, it must start by respecting its own Constitution and the basic principles of sovereignty. Weaponizing outdated domestic laws against foreign leaders does not project strength—it projects institutional shame.
This is not justice.
It is a dangerous precedent—and an embarrassment for the U.S. legal system.
