New Pentagon Plan Prioritizes Western

Hemisphere and the Homeland Over China

THEY HAVE MANY PLANS

by Gary Olson / September 13th, 2025

A draft of the latest National Defense Strategy (NDS) was leaked to Politico (09/5/2025). If implemented, the plan proposes pivoting away from China and prioritizing the protection of the homeland and the Western Hemisphere. The speed of this radical pivot away from China is astonishing, and its impact enormously consequential. It’s also confounding as its author is none other than Elbridge Colby, the current Deputy Secretary of War. It was Colby who co-wrote the 2018 NDS, which unequivocally focused on deterring China, earning him praise from neocons in both political parties. Colby, grandson of former CIA Director William Colby, followed this up with a highly influential book, Strategy of Denial (Yale University Press, 2021), in which he advocated for shifting the U.S. focus toward China and away from Europe and the Middle East. His fear-mongering reached fever pitch when he wrote that “If China succeeds, we can forget about housing, food, savings, affordable college for our kids, and other domestic needs.” This amplified what happened back on November 17, 2011, when former President Barack Obama announced his “Pivot” or “rebalance” to China. Years of warnings about “The China Threat” followed — until last week.

Why did this belligerent, “China Hawks’ China Hawk” and those within his circle dramatically change course? It’s plausible that they are choosing to conform to Trump and J.D. Vance’s “America First” agenda (and keep their jobs). It’s also likely — and this is my hope — that influential members of the national security state finally concluded that the U.S. global empire is extremely overextended, in inexorable decline, and no longer financially sustainable. China is being considered a peer power and has conceded its own sphere of influence.

Concurrently, many neoconservatives in both political parties have lamentably realized that their acknowledged proxy war in Ukraine against Russia has, in all essentials, failed. The fighting will go on for a time, but Russia has won, and Trump knows it. With Trump’s dramatic new policy, we can also expect the gradual withdrawal of some 80,000 troops from Europe and the closing of many of the 750+ military bases across the globe, including hundreds surrounding China. All available evidence suggests that the U.S. unipolar moment is over and a new era is unfolding. This is welcome news for most people around the globe, and it also helps to avoid a possible war between the U.S and China.

However, for those in the Western Hemisphere, NDS 2025 means that under the guise of democracy promotion and fighting “narco-terrorism,” we can expect accelerated efforts at “regime change” in Latin America — starting with Venezuela — to secure favorable conditions for U.S. corporations. Beyond that, the phrase “protecting the homeland” has an ominous ring. Protection from whom? Former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman argues that the Department of Homeland Security is “the ideal authoritarian tool” and the tool Trump will use against all left protesters. I fear “Making America Safe Again” will not stop with “border emergencies” and deportations but give rise to increasingly authoritarian rule.

Depending on the degree of public opposition, I would not rule out Trump declaring a national emergency and martial law. On his Truth Social account, Trump wrote, “I love the smell of deportations in the morning…’ Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of War,” alluding to Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 film “Apocalypse Now” where Robert Duvall’s character says, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” The text reads “Chipocolypse Now.” Trump has mentioned sending federal authorities to Portland, Oregon, to “wipe ‘em out,” meaning protestors. Will he also “love the smell of pepper spray in the evening used on peaceful protestors?”

In an interview with “Fox and Friends,” Trump  tried to make the case that the “radical left” was behind most political violence in the country, saying, “We have radical left lunatics out there and we just have to beat the hell out of them.” And even before learning that Tyler Robinson was arrested for the murder of Charlie Kirk, Trump said, “The radicals on the left are the problem, they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re political savvy.” There is every reason to believe that Trump will weaponize Kirk’s killing to demonize and repress the left in the “homeland.”

Finally, I’m thinking here of the “Reichstag moment” (February 17, 1933) when the German parliament building (the Reichstag) was set ablaze and the Nazi regime, led by Hitler, blamed it on Communists. He used it as a pretext to suspend traditional democratic rights, claim emergency power, and begin eliminating opponents — all on behalf of protecting the German “homeland.” How far are we from such a moment? Our political leaders have already capitulated to Trump, and it remains to be seen how the rest of us will respond if the danger continues to escalate.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Gary Olson is Professor Emeritus at Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA. Contact: glolson416@gmail.com. Per usual, thanks to Kathleen Kelly, my in-house ed. Read other articles by Gary.

Why It Matters That Male and Female Economists See the Economy Differently

In a significant new study published by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Canadian economist Mohsen Javdani reveals that gender shapes views on power, equality, and inclusion in ways politics alone can’t explain.


A close-up shows a woman shopping at a convenience store and checking her receipt while exiting.
(Photo by Getty Images)

Lynn Parramore
Sep 14, 2025

Common Dreams

Men and women might check the same box on election day, but they see the economy through different lenses. Just ask professional economists.

That’s the striking implication of a new study by Mohsen Javdani, associate professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, who surveyed over 2,400 economists across 19 countries. His research reveals that gender shapes how they understand economic issues in ways politics alone can’t explain—and warrants attention from policymakers and campaigns alike.

As Trump Recession Looms, New WSJ Poll Backs Call for Democrats to Embrace Economic Populism

Economists Warn Trump Attack on Fed Will Further Jack Prices for Working Families

Javdani wasn’t just chasing numbers; he was looking for patterns in what economists believe and focus on. What he found: Women in the field (still underrepresented) are more likely to challenge traditional theories, promote equality and social justice, and push for a more inclusive economics. They tend to lean further left than their male colleagues, who are more often centrists or right leaning.

Probably no surprise there.

But here’s the twist: Even when the men and women shared the same political beliefs, they still interpreted economics differently. Right-leaning female economists, for example, were more likely than their male peers to question orthodox ideas and emphasize equality and inclusion. Javdani’s data suggests that as economists shift right politically, men abandon progressive views more quickly than women do.

Simply put, political labels often try to explain it all, but they miss a big piece: Gender is at work behind the scenes.

If right-leaning women are more receptive to progressive economic ideas than their male counterparts, then campaigns that speak directly to these women could unlock a powerful, untapped base for fairness and inclusion.

So, just pack the room with more women and expect the conversation to shift? Not so fast.

Javdani points to earlier research by Giulia Zacchia and others, showing that numbers alone don’t cut it, especially if the loudest voices still echo the same old male-dominated, market-centered dogma. Without structural changes and real efforts to open the field to new ideas, the issues women tend to bring to the table, like labor protections, inequality, and a more hands-on role for government, keep getting sidelined. New faces, same soundtrack. Female economists are out there pushing for redistribution, calling out bias, and demanding better, but if no one’s listening, the system stays stuck.

This isn’t just academic—what’s at stake is a real understanding of how the economy hits women, what they contribute, and why their labor keeps getting undervalued.

Javdani’s study breaks new ground by showing how politics can blur—but never erase—the gender gap in economic thinking. As he writes:
While moving rightward on the political spectrum is consistently associated with weaker support for progressive and equity-oriented positions, the decline is less steep among women. In several cases—particularly among right- and far-right-leaning economists—women remained more supportive of positions emphasizing inequality, structural disadvantage, and concern about corporate power.

For anyone trying to grasp how voters think about the economy, this research is very suggestive.

Javdani study samples only economists, but it is difficult to believe that the differences he documents do not extend far more broadly, and that if we want to understand economic opinions at the ballot box, we have to look beyond party lines and pay attention to gender.

A recent NBC News poll, for example, shows a wide gap between conservative young male voters and their liberal female counterparts on issues like financial independence, debt, and home ownership. And a new Gallup survey reveals meaningful differences in how male and female respondents view capitalism and socialism—with men viewing capitalism more positively than women, and the reverse for socialism.

But significantly, there are also large gaps among men and women in the same political categories. A March 2025 Pew analysis found Republican women were more than twice as likely as Republican men to see employer bias as a major cause of the gender wage gap (43% vs. 18%). Meanwhile, polling by Navigator Research shows American women are consistently more pessimistic about the economy than men, across race, income, and party lines. This stems from how women experience the economy day-to-day—focusing on costs like groceries, rent, and healthcare rather than abstract numbers like GDP or the stock market.

As a result, women tend to strongly support policies that directly ease these burdens, from paid family leave and the Child Tax Credit to cracking down on corporate price gouging.

Yet much economic messaging still treats the economy as gender-neutral—a costly oversight for anyone hoping to connect with voters. Javdani’s research points to a missed opportunity: If right-leaning women are more receptive to progressive economic ideas than their male counterparts, then campaigns that speak directly to these women could unlock a powerful, untapped base for fairness and inclusion.

Talking about economics like gender doesn’t matter is like playing checkers in a chess game. When you meet people where they actually are, not where your ideological playbook says they should be, you stop talking past each other, and start building something real, like an economy that works for everybody.

Don’t Let Wall Street Gamble With Your Golden Years

Chloe Rogers

September 12, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photo by Aditya Vyas

Your retirement savings are supposed to be the safest money you’ll ever have — not a roll of the dice. The whole point of a 401(k) and other retirement plans is to let you gradually build wealth that brings economic security in your golden years.

But private equity firms are itching to lure retirement savers into Wall Street’s casino. Anyone who wants a secure retirement should recall what Las Vegas tourists inevitably learn: the house always wins.

Private equity is a business model built on raising money from big, sophisticated institutional investors like pension funds, endowments, and insurance companies — then buying companies to flip them for profit.

It works out well for Wall Street executives who pocket enormous fees, but it often leaves companies and workers in ruins.

Toys “R” Us was driven into bankruptcy after being loaded with debt by its private equity owners. So were hospital chains Steward Healthcare and Prospect Medical Holdings, craft powerhouse Joann Fabrics, the TGI Fridays restaurant chain, Payless ShoeSource, and Sears. These companies were all gutted by private equity deals that prioritized quick payouts over long-term stability.

But now, the big investors these Wall Street firms once relied on — like Yale University, which oversees a staggering $41.4 billion endowment — are walking away after years of high fees, murky accounting, and disappointing results.

If the pros are stepping away, who’s left? Ordinary savers, who hold $12.4 trillion in retirement accounts. Private equity firms want to bring the workers holding this cash to the table, where the game is stacked against them.

And the Trump administration is helping them, pressuring the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the very agencies meant to safeguard retirement savers, to open the door for private equity firms to enter 401(k) plans.

Private equity firms see you as easy prey. Your retirement account is a steady pot of money, and they’d love to siphon off fat fees while locking you into risky, opaque investments you can’t escape. They get rich whether you win or lose — and you get stuck with the bill.

While a standard index fund charges less than half a percent in annual fees, private equity takes 2 percent off the top every year plus 20 percent of whatever gains the investments make. There are “transaction fees,” “monitoring fees,” and other made-up charges that guarantee the casino wins — and your golden years pay for someone else’s yacht.

If you invest your money in the stock market, you can see what’s going on: up or down, it’s very transparent. Private equity funds set their own valuations, meaning your account balance could look fine on paper even as long-term losses pile up. Plus, your money could be tied up for five or ten years. Need cash for an emergency? Too bad.

No one saving for retirement ever asked, “Can you make my 401(k) riskier, less transparent and more expensive?” Instead, this push is coming straight from Wall Street, which has spent years buying political influence in Washington.

The Trump administration welcomed private equity executives into its ranks and has been eager to deliver on their agenda, weakening the rules that kept retirement funds safe for decades and clearing the way for Wall Street to raid ordinary people’s savings.

Retirement saving should be boring. Boring means low fees, broad diversification, steady growth, and money that will be there when you need it. But in the private equity casino, Wall Street never risks its own chips. They rake in the pot while you’re left holding the losses.

The lure of gambling is insidious. Wall Street will play on that as it pushes the Trump administration for finance-friendly changes. If private equity is allowed into 401(k)s, the only ones guaranteed to come out ahead are the billionaires.

And your golden years? You’ll be cleaned out.

Targeting Venezuela, Trump Escalates US Campaign of Aggression in Latin America

The US and Latin American right have long mobilized to remove challenges to their traditional privileges and control.

By Jonathan Ng ,

Truthout

September 13, 2025

An activist holds a poster depicting U.S. President Donald Trump bearing devil horns during a protest in defense of national sovereignty following the U.S. government trade taxes and sanctions on Brazil, near the U.S. consulate, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on August 1, 2025.NELSON ALMEIDA / AFP via Getty Images

Earlier this month, the Trump administration bombed a civilian boat in the Caribbean, after sending warships to the region. “Instead of interdicting” the vessel, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized, “we blew it up.” The attack drew harsh criticism from legal experts such as former Human Rights Watch Director Kenneth Roth, who called it “a summary execution – the crime of murder.”

U.S. officials frame the operation as a dissuasive strike against drug traffickers. Yet many experts agree that the crude display of force and ongoing naval expedition form part of an offensive against President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. The White House claims without evidence that the socialist statesman and U.S. critic is a drug cartel leader. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stresses that policy makers are ready to leverage “every asset that the American military has” toward regime change.

The drive to overthrow Maduro illuminates an established but often unrecognized pattern of imperialism in Latin America. U.S. officials and regional conservatives have long targeted leftist leaders, attacking political threats to their influence and investments. In recent decades, opposition to “Pink Tide” governments has fostered new forms of interventionism, disinformation, and legal manipulation. Trump’s naval expedition highlights this trend, which now threatens self-determination and democracy across much of Latin America.

Turning the Tide

The current cycle of conflict began in the early 2000s, as “Pink Tide” governments took power challenging Washington’s leadership and neoliberal capitalism. Leftists such as Evo Morales, the first Indigenous president of Bolivia, prioritized social programs, while promoting regional integration to counterbalance U.S. influence. In response, President George W. Bush tried to create a political terrainhostile to reform. Repeatedly, his administration strengthened the local opposition in strategic sectors — especially the judiciary and legislature — to foster political gridlock.

Morales’s election in 2005 unnerved U.S. diplomats in particular. They portrayed his progressive agenda as a reckless assault on foreign investment. In one racist description, officials labeled the Indigenous president a “[r]adical cocalero union leader” with “strong anti-democratic tendencies,” willing to “physically intimidate anyone” standing in his way.

During their first meeting, Ambassador David Greenlee bullied Morales by outlining the United States’s suffocating influence over the Bolivian financial system. “When you think of the IDB [Inter-American Development Bank], you should think of the U.S.,” Greenlee underscored. “This is not blackmail, it is simple reality.”

The U.S. embassy recommended the “careful application of carrots and sticks” to expose Morales’s vulnerability. Officials brainstormed “the freezing of certain programs,” blocking international loans, and other “shots over the bow” to signal “it will not be business as usual.” Meanwhile, the U.S. government poured money into strengthening opposition forces. Between 2005 and 2006, USAID heavily redirected funding in Bolivia toward conservative civic groups and politicians, continuing a long-time agency tradition of operating as a screen for foreign intervention.

The embassy became a hotbed of political intrigue, as a revolving cast of right-wing leaders and activists lobbied for U.S. assistance. Privately, former President Jorge Quiroga urged Ambassador Greenlee to “block further debt relief for Bolivia.” Another U.S. ambassador himself hosted meetings and a cocktail party for opposition members.

Tensions peaked in 2008 when conservative activists in the Media Luna region organized an illegal referendum seeking political autonomy. The embassy reported coup rumblings, noting that “opposition-aligned” forces were “contacting Bolivian military general officers regularly” for support. “If called upon to put down ‘insurrection,’ they claim they would side with the Media Luna.”

So would the United States. USAID programs aimed to “strengthen regional governments as a counter-balance to the central government.” The opposition mobilized the Media Luna region, but failed to topple Morales. In response, his administration ousted the U.S. ambassador and DEA officials for helping instigate the unrest.

Morales proved fortunate. In 2012, USAID-backed forces ousted the progressive President Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, who had sided in agrarian conflicts with displaced peasants and sought land reform. Across Latin America, Washington supported opposition-dominated civic and state institutions in order to tip the balance of forces against the left. Wielding “carrots and sticks,” they aimed to reassert a political order that preserved U.S. investment and influence, while locking the left out of power.
Waging Lawfare

Above all, the United States deepened cooperation with foreign judges, prosecutors, and other law enforcement officials. In multiple countries, conservatives substituted legal combat and disinformation for open warfare against the left. They waged “lawfare” in the courts and press, immobilizing progressive leaders through judicial harassment and character assassination. Lawfare operations were slow-motion coups with a legal façade: court disputes and impeachment procedures that made military force unnecessary.

They gained notoriety in Brazil, where the United States played a major role in Operation Car Wash, a politically motivated anti-corruption probe that ran from 2014 and 2022, which investigators pursued to undercut the Workers’ Party. Brazilian prosecutors held secret meetings with U.S. officials investigating bribery without informing their own Ministry of Justice. “[The] Americans don’t want us to divulge things,” one confided. Notably, a veteran of several U.S. legal exchange programs, Judge Sergio Moro, presided over the operation. A Supreme Court minister observed that officials were “participating in a gold rush” to enrich their own agencies and advance their personal careers: Eventually, the state oil company, Petrobras, alone paid over $853 million in penalties.

In 2016, the opposition exploited the probe to oust President Dilma Rousseff in a parliamentary coup, enabling Michel Temer — a former U.S. informant — to assume office. Legislators impeached Rousseff after accusing her of manipulating state finances. Yet auditors found no evidence of wrongdoing. Afterward, Judge Moro sentenced former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for false corruption charges. Although the Supreme Court eventually ordered Lula’s release and annulled his convictions, the initial ruling undermined the left’s electoral prospects, allowing the arch-reactionary Jair Bolsonaro to win the presidency in 2018. Later, Bolsonaro rewarded Moro by appointing him minister of justice.

President Lenín Moreno of Ecuador also waged lawfare against the left after assuming office in 2017. His predecessor Rafael Correa and the Citizen Revolution Movement (RC) slashed poverty by 38 percent, while building robust social programs. But Moreno betrayed Correa and his former colleagues by persecuting them, purging the judiciary, and imposing austerity measures. As poverty and protests spread, he thanked a forum of bankers for opposing his election, since he now attracted “hatred instead from those who voted” for him.


Lawfare operations were slow-motion coups with a legal façade: court disputes and impeachment procedures that made military force unnecessary.

RC leaders faced death threats, police surveillance, and imprisonment, forcing many into exile. Authorities sentenced Correa in absentia for “psychic influence” over government officials. Interpol recognized that the case was outrageous and refused to extradite him from Belgium. Back in Ecuador, authorities arrested and allegedly tortured former Vice President Jorge Glas.

As in Brazil, the U.S. government backed the campaign of persecution. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded Mil Hojas, a journalism collective that smeared the RC with corruption allegations. A NED newsletter, Democracy Digest, explained that Correa governed “when left-wing leaders were ascendent in Latin America,” before approvingly noting the “left-wing wave has since subsided.” Attorney General Diana Salazar later received a Wilson Center award for spearheading the repression. Privately, she admitted that U.S. officials “want [the] RC’s head.”

Lawfare became an essential strategy of the right in Latin America, triggering a domino effect of coups against progressive governments. Brazil and Ecuador became models for local oligarchies and U.S. officials attempting to drain the “Pink Tide.” The field of struggle shifted from the ballot box to the courtroom, as the right took back the power it had lost in elections.
Courtroom Drama

Most notably, Brazil and Ecuador offered a script for conservatives in Argentina, which became the epicenter of lawfare. In 2015, the wealthy conservative Mauricio Macri became president, before revamping law enforcement cooperation with the United States — securing DEA assistance, training for judges, and enhanced intelligence coordination. The infusion of U.S. aid helped Macri clobber former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (“CFK”) and the Peronist left.

Between 2003 and 2015, CFK and her husband steered Argentina out of a financial crisis and alleviated poverty, while refusing to impose IMF-prescribed austerity measures. Macri and U.S. officials vigorously opposed their bold progressive agenda, prompting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ask about the president’s “nerves and anxiety” — as if leftist policies were a sign of mental illness.

The backlash was swift. By 2022, CFK was the target of over 650 legal complaints. One Macri ally alone initiated 74 against her.

A group of leading international jurists including Baltasar Garzón concluded that CFK was the victimof “judicial persecution.” Garzón emphasized that it was “not [even] possible for a person to have committed as many illicit acts as she has been accused of.”

Former Supreme Court Justice Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni observed that his Argentine colleagues exploited “the technique of lawfare,” pursuing CFK and other Peronistas without evidence. Zaffaroni noted that officials organized “mafia-style meetings” to coordinate their campaign against the left. Notoriously, the minister of labor for Buenos Aires, Marcelo Villegas, a close Macri ally, plotted with businessmen to destroy the labor movement. “Believe me, if I had a Gestapo… a shock force to finish off all the trade unions, I would go ahead,” Villegas confided.

The collusion between the judiciary and conservatives was ongoing. At least five judges and two prosecutors involved in a public works (“Vialidad”) corruption case against CFK privately consulted right-wing leaders and Macri — whose very administration opened the proceedings. Senior judges and prosecutors even played soccer and tennis at the president’s residence.

Major news outlets legitimated the repression by joining what CFK dubbed “a media-judicial firing squad.” The leading newspaper, Clarín, published sensational coverage echoing claims of corruption. One editor admitted that his team waged “war journalism” against CFK. Ultimately, lawfare mobilized not only judges but journalists, cementing the impression of guilt in the public imagination because the courts lacked the evidence to do so.

Eventually, Macri allies led a secret retreat in Lago Escondido for judges, government lawyers, and Clarín representatives. The group included Judge Julián Ercolini, who oversaw the “Vialidad” case against CFK. After news of the retreat leaked, officials discussed potential cover stories to avoid leaving “loose ends.” They struggled to concoct a convincing lie. “We can’t say that we went fishing,” one member lamented, because “it’s not fishing season.”

The Lago Escondido scandal exposed the fusion of the judiciary and media that made lawfare possible. Latin American conservatives claimed that a separation of powers existed. But the manipulation of justice and information revealed the oligarchy’s vice-like grip over strategic sectors of society. The campaign against CFK was a sign of this deeper reality, as supposedly impartial institutions repeatedly asserted their class bias.
Gavels or Guns

By 2017, the right-wing resurgence and Donald Trump’s presidency was emboldening regional conservatives, who openly adopted more aggressive methods of regime change. Critical observers portrayed lawfare as a fundamental break from the military coups of the Cold War past. Yet U.S.-backed security forces remained the last resort and irreducible bedrock of the oligarchy’s class power.

This became clear in Venezuela, where Trump revamped efforts to strangle the Bolivarian Revolution: a self-proclaimed socialist experiment that rejected U.S. hegemony. Grasping for pretexts, officials exploited an Obama-era executive order that labeled the country an “unusual and extraordinary threat” as precedent, while blocking access to U.S. financial and energy markets. Previous measures targeted individual Venezuelans leaders. But the latest raft of sanctions were indiscriminate and agonizing, fomenting a humanitarian crisis and offering a pretext for military intervention. Economists concluded that U.S. pressure caused “tens of thousands of deaths” by depriving Venezuelans of medicine and food, while propelling “the largest economic collapse, outside of wartime, since 1950.”

Exploiting the chaos, the opposition legislator Juan Guaidó spearheaded a coup in January 2019 with Trump’s encouragement. Later, National Security Advisor John Bolton explained that they supported Guaidó to secure control of Venezuela’s energy wealth, including the largest known oil reserves in the world. But privately, Trump ridiculed the coup leader. “This kid – nobody’s ever heard of him,” he guffawed. As the coup fizzled, Trump unsuccessfully attempted to incite military intervention by demanding that Venezuelan officers oust President Nicolás Maduro or “lose everything.”


Far from passé, military intervention remained an alluring option in the regime change playbook, while U.S. and local officials isolated bastions of the left, mobilizing judges when possible and soldiers, if necessary.

That same year, however, Trump’s regime change strategy succeeded in Bolivia, after Morales secured reelection in October. The U.S.-dominated Organization of American States published inaccurate statements challenging the results, which fueled an exhibition of unrestrained racism and class resentment. Middle-class motorcycle gangs wove through city corridors hunting Indigenous socialists, and pro-coup security forces massacred dozens of civilians.

As Morales’s government imploded, the opposition senator Jeanine Áñez declared herself president. Reenacting the Spanish conquest, Áñez entered office with an oversized Bible and conquistador cross, after having asserted that Indigenous culture was “satanic.”

U.S. fingerprints were all over the coup. The Washington-aligned OAS played an essential role in escalating the crisis. The U.S.-trained Bolivian general, Williams Kaliman, pressured Morales to resign. And the Trump administration immediately backed Áñez, arguing that “Morales’s departure preserves democracy.” Tesla founder Elon Musk appeared belligerent when observers accused the United States of orchestrating the coup to secure lithium for his company. “We will coup whoever we want,” Musk announced. “Deal with it!”

Under President Joe Biden, U.S. officials both maintained crushing sanctions against Venezuela and continued to back Áñez in Bolivia, even after local authorities arrested her for illegally seizing power. The violence of the 2019 coups exposed an underlying pattern. Far from passé, military intervention remained an alluring option in the regime change playbook, while U.S. and local officials isolated bastions of the left, mobilizing judges when possible and soldiers, if necessary.
Solidarity Coups

Recently, the Trump administration has reinvigorated ties with local reactionaries in the region and openly targeted progressives. The MAGA movement promotes regime change in Latin America, while offering a dangerous model for regional conservatives.

In January 2023, President Bolsonaro attempted a coup in Brazil that closely mirrored Trump’s failed 2021 insurrection. Audio recordings capture him rehearsing claims about electoral fraud before polls opened, as well as allied officers conspiring to ignite a “civil war.” Before finishing his term, Bolsonaro moved to Florida near Mar-a-Lago, where his family allegedly liaised with Trump, consolidating a truly global right-wing international.

This April, President Daniel Noboa of Ecuador also used strong-arm tactics to secure reelection. Noboa ran without taking the required leave of absence and illegally tapped public funds for his campaign. After underperforming in the first round, Noboa visited Trump to enhance his image among voters seeking aggressive leadership amid spiraling crime rates and economic uncertainty. He then declared a state of emergency in pro-RC areas before the runoff election, allowing the police to impose curfews and prohibit public gatherings. Noboa’ is an implacable enemy of the left — at one point, security forces invaded the Mexican embassy to arrest a dissident.

Across the region, conservative populists maintain an open alliance against progressive movements. More than anyone, President Javier Milei of Argentina personifies the right’s reactionary fury and ties to Washington. Milei not only gifted Elon Musk a chainsaw at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference in Maryland. He also headlined Brazil’s CPAC, where he denounced the left after binge drinking with Bolsonaro.

Ultimately, the alignment between the U.S. and Latin America’s oligarchies is toppling more than progressive governments. Right-wing backlash to social democracy has eroded the rule of law, reimposed poverty, and fostered political despair.

This summer, CFK began six years of house arrest for the “Vialidad” case, after the US government itself sanctioned the leftist leader. Prominent Argentine journalists welcomed her arrest by applauding themselves for making “this day possible.” Her detention continues as leaked audio files suggest that Milei’s sister has embezzled funds for citizens with disabilities, and an allied judge is prohibiting the publication of potential evidence, curbing freedom of speech and exacerbating a national scandal.

Recently, Brazil’s Supreme Court convicted Bolsonaro for organizing the failed 2023 coup, citing “overwhelming evidence” that he plotted to assassinate Lula and a senior judge. Prior to Bolsonaro’s sentencing, the White House had leveraged tariffs to punish Brazilian authorities who are attempting to hold the former president accountable, and had threatened to apply “military might” in his defense.

The naval expedition against President Maduro of Venezuela fits into this broader context. Taking lawfare to its extreme, U.S. leaders now advocate regime change by claiming that Maduro is a drug trafficker. Yet the evidence is flimsy, and Secretary of State Rubio exploded when confronted with opposing conclusions. “I don’t care what the UN says,” he retorted. From the sidelines, Venezuelan conservatives have echoed drug trafficking claims and encouraged officials to ramp up economic pressure.

In short, Trump’s bare-fisted offensive against Venezuela is nothing new. For two decades, the United States and Latin American right have mobilized to eradicate challenges to their traditional privileges and control. Lawfare against the left has cleared the way for dangerous reactionaries, while reinforcing inequality and inflicting lasting damage to government institutions. Rather than social progress, the right is pursuing solidarity coups across borders: substituting oligarchical rule for democracy and, once more, turning Latin America into a central battleground in the global struggle against U.S. imperialism.

The author would like to thank Sarah Priscilla Lee of the Learning Sciences Program at Northwestern University for reviewing this article.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Jonathan Ng is a postdoctoral fellow at the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College.

Venezuela says US marines raided a fishermen's boat in the Caribbean as tensions rise\\

Associated Press
Sat, September 13, 2025 

Members of the Bolivarian Militia listen to a recorded speech by President Nicolás Maduro at a military garrison in Caracas, Venezuela, Friday, Sept. 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Cristrian Hernandez)


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Personnel from a U.S. warship boarded a Venezuelan tuna boat with nine fishermen while it was sailing in Venezuelan waters, Venezuela’s foreign minister said on Saturday, underlining strained relations with the United States.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tensions between the two nations escalated after U.S. President Donald Trump in August ordered the deployment of warships in the Caribbean, off the coast of the South American country, citing the fight against Latin American drug cartels.

While reading a statement on Saturday, Foreign Minister Yván Gil told journalists the Venezuelan tuna boat was “illegally and hostilely boarded by a United States Navy destroyer” and 18 armed personnel who remained on the vessel for eight hours, preventing communication and the fishermen’s normal activities. They were then released under escort by the Venezuelan navy.

The fishing boat had authorization from the Ministry of Fisheries to carry out its work, Gil said at a press conference, during which he presented photos of the incident.

Along with the statement, Venezuela’s foreign affairs ministry distributed a short video, taken, according to the ministry, by the Venezuelan fishermen. In the video, it is alleged that part of the fishing boat, U.S. Navy personnel and the U.S. warship can be seen.

“Those who give the order to carry out such provocations are seeking an incident that would justify a military escalation in the Caribbean,” Gil said, adding that the objective is to “persist in their failed policy” of regime change in Venezuela.

Gil said the incident was “illegal” and “illegitimate” and warned that Venezuela will defend its sovereignty against any “provocation.”

The Venezuelan foreign minister’s complaint comes days after Trump said that his country had attacked a drug-laden vessel and killed 11 people on board. Trump said the vessel had departed from Venezuela and was carrying members of the Tren de Aragua gang, but his administration has not presented any evidence to support that claim.

Venezuela accused the United States of committing extrajudicial killings. The South American country’s interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, said Washington’s version is “a tremendous lie” and suggested that, according to Venezuelan government investigations, the incident could be linked to the disappearance of some individuals in a coastal region of the country who had no ties to drug trafficking.

The Trump administration has accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of leading a cartel to flood the U.S. with drugs, and doubled the reward for his capture from $25 million to $50 million.

The U.S. government has given no indication that it plans to carry out a ground incursion with the more than 4,000 troops being deployed in the area.

But the Venezuelan government has nonetheless called on its citizens to enlist in the militias - armed volunteers - in support of its security forces in the event of a potential incursion. On Saturday, it urged them to go to military barracks for training sessions.