There is precedent for the Department of Justice to focus action on areas that are aligned with the country’s foreign policy priorities. In 1988, the Justice Department indicted President Manuel Noriega of Panama and members of his inner circle when relations between Panama City and Washington were breaking down. More recently, the Justice Department indicted and sought to extradite Huawei’s chief financial officer as the United States was speaking out about security threats posed by Huawei technology and by China.

There is speculation in Washington that sealed indictments of members of Mr. Maduro’s inner circle already exist and that the Justice Department is waiting for the right moment to release them. The time is ripe to pursue new indictments against members of the Maduro regime.

That doesn’t apply just to the United States, though it has stronger intelligence abilities that allow us to have a better sense of who may be committing what crimes. Countries like Colombia, where many Venezuelans have fled; Peru, where Venezuelan refugees have become victims of trafficking; and Argentina, whose criminal justice system has one of the broadest legal definitions of prosecuting “crimes against humanity,” should all be investigating whether Maduro associates have committed crimes within their jurisdictions.

Some would argue that bringing criminal charges against members of Mr. Maduro’s team is futile. Surely they will not be extradited to the United States or anywhere else. While that may be true, there is still weight in such actions.

First, the judicial systems in the United States and many other countries in the Americas are still respected as being independent of the executive branches of those countries. While there is precedent for the Justice Department to focus on United States foreign policy interests, there is still an important separation between sanctions, which can be done at the whim of the executive branch, and indictments, which require evidence to be presented in a court of law. Indictments are issued only if enough evidence exists to convince an independent court of law.