Nicaragua’s Ortega said he will end elections. Why isn’t the US treating this like Cuba and Venezuela?

Why US Treats Nicaragua Differently Than Cuba and Venezuela

Activelifezero.com – Nicaragua s Ortega said he will end elections, yet Washington has not responded as forcefully as it did with Cuba and Venezuela. Following the American capture of Venezuela’s president during January and the subsequent tightening of economic measures against Cuba, observers questioned whether Nicaragua might become Washington’s next target. This Central American nation, governed by an authoritarian regime under Daniel Ortega, recently eliminated the prospect of future electoral contests. Despite these developments, the United States has maintained a relatively restrained posture toward Managua, while Ortega and his wife Rosario Murillo, who serve as co-presidents, have deliberately avoided escalating tensions with the Trump administration.

Notably, Nicaragua implemented several policy adjustments shortly after the Venezuelan operation, actions widely viewed as conciliatory gestures. The government released numerous detainees following American demands and reestablished visa requirements for Cuban citizens, effectively curbing their movement toward North America. Meanwhile, in April, Washington introduced fresh sanctions targeting two sons of the ruling couple. Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently criticized Ortega’s announcement to abolish elections, yet he has refrained from advocating for regime change in Nicaragua, a position he has taken explicitly regarding Cuba.

Expert Analysis on Regional Differences

For Marco Rubio, Cuba matters much more than Nicaragua. Also, Nicaragua does not have Venezuela’s natural resources.

Professor Kai Thaler from the University of California, Santa Barbara’s Department of Global Studies highlighted these distinctions. He noted that Nicaragua operates under familial rule without a designated successor comparable to Venezuela’s Delcy Rodriguez, who assumed leadership following President Nicolas Maduro’s capture. Thaler emphasized that Ortega and Murillo have systematically removed every potential alternative for national leadership.

Manuel Orozco, a Nicaraguan political scientist and director of the Migration, Remittances, and Development Program at the Inter-American Dialogue, explained that Washington employs a distinct strategy toward Nicaragua compared to its approaches in Caracas and Havana. According to Orozco, the White House prefers to avoid measures that might trigger mass migration or severe repression, instead favoring incremental transformations without direct military involvement.

One interpretation is that the political inertia in the Murillo and Ortega dictatorship will generate internal conflict, an economic slowdown, a possible social protest where (the US) can leverage its pressure. But not the other way around.

Orozco pointed out that intervening immediately could produce unpredictable outcomes for political transitions. He observed that the Sandinista administration, which has governed since 2007, currently faces neither economic instability nor widespread demonstrations. Consequently, any American intervention would essentially force a transition rather than respond to existing pressures. With the United States constrained, the Ortega-Murillo leadership can capitalize on these conditions while maintaining a subdued public presence.

Domestic Messaging and Strategic Patience

Ortega’s recent public comments reveal a calculated approach. In April, he characterized American sanctions against his children as “mentally deranged.” Three months later, he proclaimed the termination of elections and labeled Maduro’s detention as a “monstrosity.” During a Monday gathering with supporters, the nearly twenty-year ruler declared that new elections would not occur, arguing they would enable opposition forces to capture power.

Thaler said such statements indicate the government “does not believe the United States is going to focus on Nicaragua, that Ortega feels safe criticizing and insulting Trump like that.”

Orozco interpreted Ortega’s April remarks as primarily directed at domestic audiences. He described the approach as symbolic—allowing the government to project anti-imperialist credentials without substantive policy shifts. The administration has not demonstrated genuine solidarity with Venezuela or Cuba in either rhetoric or diplomatic actions.

CNN’s attempts to obtain responses from the Nicaraguan government proved unsuccessful, as the administration typically avoids press engagement. Orozco concluded that Washington has been steadily building pressure through sanctions, a pattern Nicaragua rarely addresses publicly. He warned against misreading the situation as evidence that Nicaragua follows Venezuela and Cuba in line for direct American intervention. The administration has not fully calculated what removing these leaders would mean for a nation lacking organized opposition and clear