Tensions flared outside a Manhattan federal courthouse on Thursday as former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro appeared in court to face charges of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism.

Maduro, captured by US special forces earlier this year and extradited to the United States, faced a court packed with rival demonstrators.

Supporters waved banners reading “Free President Maduro Flores,” denouncing the January 3 military operation that led to his capture as a violation of international law.

“I came because the US is attacking the peoples of the Americas. The operation on January 3 was illegal under both US and international law,” said Jill Clark-Golub of the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition, speaking for pro-Maduro protesters.

Opposing demonstrations also took place outside the court, with critics insisting Maduro must be held accountable for alleged drug trafficking and corruption under his administration.

Nelly Saucedo, an anti-Maduro protester, accused the former leader of orchestrating state-sanctioned drug operations.

Inside the courtroom, Maduro’s legal team sought the dismissal of his indictment, arguing that the United States was violating his constitutional rights by blocking access to Venezuelan government funds for legal defense.

The proceedings opened with a heated debate between defense lawyers and federal prosecutors over this issue.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were seized in a pre-dawn raid in Caracas in January, following months of US pressure on his government and targeted military operations aimed at alleged drug trafficking networks.

He has pleaded not guilty and remains in federal custody in New York as the trial continues.

US charging documents allege that Maduro used state power to protect and promote illegal activities, including cocaine trafficking and narco-terrorism, actions that have ignited international debate over legality and sovereignty.

The unfolding trial is set against a backdrop of polarized opinion, with Maduro’s supporters condemning the operation as unlawful, and opponents calling for justice for his alleged crimes.

The intensifying conflict between the United States and Iran took a cautious diplomatic turn as President Donald Trump announced a fresh delay in planned strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure.

Trump said negotiations to end the war were “going very well,” even as Israel launched a new round of strikes targeting key sites in Tehran early Friday.

The US leader disclosed that he had extended the deadline for possible military action by 10 days, now set for April 6, following what he described as a request from Iranian authorities.

“As per the Iranian government’s request, I am pausing the period of energy plant destruction,” Trump stated, signaling a potential opening for diplomacy despite ongoing hostilities.

The crisis, now nearing its second month, has significantly disrupted global energy flows, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital corridor that accounts for roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas shipments.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged G7 nations to intensify efforts to reopen the strait, warning of prolonged global economic fallout if disruptions persist.

Washington’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, revealed that the US had forwarded a 15-point proposal to Tehran through diplomatic channels, describing “strong signals” that Iran may be willing to negotiate.

Iranian state-linked media confirmed that Tehran had responded to the proposal, demanding war reparations, recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and an end to US and Israeli military actions in the region.

Despite these diplomatic exchanges, the conflict continues to escalate on multiple fronts.
Israel reported conducting large-scale strikes on Iranian infrastructure in Tehran, while also targeting positions linked to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

In response, Iranian forces launched missile and drone attacks against Israeli targets and US-linked military facilities in the Gulf.

The war, which began on February 28 following joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran, has triggered a de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz, sending global oil prices soaring and unsettling financial markets.

Countries worldwide are now scrambling to mitigate the impact of the energy crisis.

Japan is considering easing restrictions on coal-fired power plants, while Vietnam has temporarily lifted fuel taxes to cushion rising petrol costs.

The World Bank has warned that prolonged damage to critical infrastructure could deepen the crisis, pledging readiness to respond if conditions worsen.

Even as Trump alternates between threats of force and optimism about negotiations, concerns are mounting within Israel over the sustainability of the war effort.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid warned that the military is overstretched, criticizing the government for pursuing a multi-front war without a clear strategy or sufficient manpower.

Meanwhile, tensions along Israel’s northern border continue to rise, with Hezbollah launching rockets into northern Israel and air raid sirens sending residents scrambling for safety.

With diplomacy hanging in the balance and military actions intensifying, the coming days are expected to be critical in determining whether the conflict moves toward de-escalation or further escalation.

As the political era of Donald Trump gradually winds down, attention within the Republican Party is shifting toward a pressing question: who will take the reins next?

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas, the conversation was dominated by two leading figures — Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — both widely seen as frontrunners in a post-Trump political landscape.

For the first time in years, Trump, 79, was absent from the influential conservative gathering, creating space for emerging leaders to step forward and test their appeal among party loyalists.

While national polls suggest Vance holds a lead among Republican voters, sentiment on the ground appeared more divided, with strong backing also evident for Rubio.

Many party supporters view the contest as a choice between continuity and experience.

Vance’s appeal lies in his close alignment with Trump’s political ideology and his compelling personal story — rising from a difficult upbringing in an Appalachian community to national prominence.

Supporters also point to his communication skills and ability to articulate conservative ideas with clarity.

On the other hand, Rubio’s camp highlights his depth of experience, particularly in foreign policy and diplomacy.

Admirers describe him as a steady hand with a clear global vision, capable of navigating complex international challenges.

Despite their differences, both men are widely perceived not as departures from Trumpism but as potential heirs to the movement he built.

Their standing within the party continues to be measured largely by their loyalty to Trump and their ability to carry forward his political legacy.

A few party faithful floated alternative names, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, though such prospects currently appear to have less traction.

Still, Trump’s influence looms large. Even as Republicans begin to contemplate the future, many supporters remain reluctant to fully turn the page, with some still expressing hope for his continued political relevance despite constitutional limits.

The unfolding contest signals the early stages of a leadership transition — one defined not by a break from the past, but by a battle over who best represents the future of Trump’s Republican Party.