Sunday, February 15, 2026

Laura Dogu and Washington’s Regime-Change Playbook: Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela


Laura Dogu, newly appointed US envoy to Venezuela, is described by the Los Angeles Times as an appropriate choice because she “navigated crises” in Nicaragua and Honduras during periods of “social and political volatility.” What the LA Times fails to add is that it was precisely Dogu’s job to create crisis and volatility in both countries.

In Latin America, she is widely regarded, for good reason, as the “US ambassador of interventions and coups.”

The LA Times appears entirely relaxed about a US diplomat’s job being to meddle in the internal politics of a country whose president the US has just kidnapped in an operation resulting in the murder of over 100 people and involving the bombing of key public buildings and health facilities.

Dogu enters the fray “leveraging her experience with authoritarian regimes” and her “deep Latin American expertise.” The LA Times implies that her job is likely to be proactive, looking for ways to ease out the Chavista government and replace it with one more to Washington’s liking, even if that takes a while.

Nicaragua

Signaling that this is the case, the LA Times reporter asked right-wing opposition figures from Nicaragua for their opinions of Dogu, presumably on the basis that she is charged with working with similar quislings in her new role. Predictably, they praised her, admitting they had clandestine meetings with her while she was based in the country and noting her public support for opposition groups.

Dogu was the US ambassador in Managua from 2015 until October 2018, a period coinciding with the preparations and then the coup attempt that began in April 2018 and was defeated in July. At the start of her term, she had relatively cordial relations with the government. That changed after President Daniel Ortega was reelected in 2016 with an increased popular mandate. It became clear to Washington that electoral means to oust the Sandinistas lacked sufficient public support.

Instead, as the State Department admitted, the US concentrated its efforts on “civil society” groups led by opposition figures, “limiting their contact” with the elected government. It later emerged that, in the run-up to the April 2018 insurrection, millions of dollars were spent promoting such groups.

When the coup attempt fizzled, President Ortega explicitly identified Laura Dogu as Washington’s representative, as “the leader and financier of this conspiracy, the destruction, the fires, the torture, the disrespect for human dignity, the desecration of corpses, and other acts carried out with cruelty against all Nicaraguans marked by the great sin of being Sandinistas.” Within three months, Washington replaced her.

Honduras

In Honduras, Xiomara Castro of the progressive Libre Party became president in January 2022. Laura Dogu arrived in Tegucigalpa as the US ambassador just three months later.

The Center for Political and Economic Research (CEPR) catalogued some of her egregious interferences, including with energy and tax reformsthe creation of a Constitutional Tribunal, the replacement of the attorney general, and the building of a prison.

By 2023, Dogu was already drawing criticism from the Honduran foreign minister, who asked her to “stop commenting on internal Honduran matters.” He criticized her again in December 2024 for similar reasons after she held a series of meetings with NGOs critical of the government.

In August 2024, President Castro complained about Dogu after a US diplomat criticized Honduran officials for meeting their counterparts in Caracas. The ambassador characterized this meeting as “sitting next to a drug trafficker.”

Then, after a conflict with Dogu over Honduras’s extradition treaty with the US in September 2024 and a spate of rumors about the president’s family, Castro warned that a coup attempt was underway. Dogu concluded her term in Honduras before the presidential elections at the end of 2025, during which the US decisively interfered.

Venezuela

The LA Times ingenuously commented that Dogu was “an unusual pick signaling a strategic shift in US policy.” It was neither. US policy remains regime change, but the tactics have shifted in response to the successful and unified resistance of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Venezuelan analyst Francisco Rodriguez noted: “Laura Dogu presented credentials as diplomatic representative of the US to the government of [acting President] Delcy Rodríguez today, that would count as an act of formal recognition.”

As for Dogu being “an unusual pick,” her record, as shown above, suggests a continuation of business as usual. CEPR put it bluntly: “Dogu’s appointment suggests that the administration sought someone with experience in aggressively interfering in a host country’s domestic affairs.”

There is nothing unusual about that. Between 1898 and 1994, the US perpetrated coups and government changes in Latin America at least 41 times. Dogu now presides over just another such attempt. The only reason Washington itself hasn’t suffered a coup, Latin Americans quip, is because there is no US embassy there.

Far from breaking with the past, Dogu actually invokes it: “We never left the Cold War in Latin America,” she said.

Dogu recently tweeted: “Today I met with Delcy Rodríguez and Jorge Rodríguez to reiterate the three phases that @SecRubio has outlined regarding Venezuela: stabilization, economic recovery and reconciliation, and transition.”

The comment drew an immediate repudiation from the aforementioned Jorge Rodríguez, president of Venezuela’s National Assembly. Dogu’s failure to refer to him and the acting President Delcy Rodríguez by their formal titles is a disrespectful snub. He characterized her remarks as “diplomatic blackmail” and a “colonial roadmap.” The Venezuelan leadership may have a gun held to their heads, but they continue to respond militantly.

For now, Dogu is concentrating on the “stabilization and economic recovery” phases of the Rubio dictate. The more contentious third phase will be “transition.”

In a telling pivot from its previous myth-making that the “opposition [is] more unified than ever,” the LA Times now admits that Dogu is just the right official to be foisted on Venezuela because of her experience navigating “fragmented opposition movements.” The opposition to the Chavista government has long been fractious despite hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into “democracy promotion” by the US.

Contrary to myths in the corporate press, María Corina Machado and her handpicked surrogate, Edmundo González Urrutia, may not be the people’s choice in Venezuela. No lesser authority than Donald Trump himself commented that Machado “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country.”

If the claims that the opposition won the July 2024 presidential election by a 70% landslide were credible, why didn’t González present his evidence when summoned by Venezuela’s supreme court? Failing to do so left no constitutional basis for declaring him the winner.

But that was the whole point of Washington’s interference in backing an astroturf opposition with more traction inside the Beltway than in Caracas. The US objective was not to win the contest but to delegitimize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The deadly sanctions – illegal unilateral coercive measures – were explicitly designed as collective punishment to erode Maduro’s authority with his compatriots.

And when that failed, and the Bolivarian Revolution prevailed, Washington escalated further, culminating in the January 3 kidnapping of a constitutional head of state. That military action formed part of its hybrid war, accompanied by sustained demonization of Maduro before the US public.

Conclusion

Laura Dogu’s appointment ultimately signals not innovation but continuity: a recalibration of tactics in pursuit of the same objective that has defined US policy toward the Bolivarian Revolution for decades – regime change through pressure, attrition, and delegitimization. Whether branded as “stabilization,” “economic recovery,” or “transition,” the underlying premise remains that Venezuela’s political future should be shaped in Washington, not Caracas.

Yet the record in Nicaragua, Honduras, and Venezuela itself suggests that external coercion has limits. Dogu’s mission will test not only Venezuela’s resilience but also the durability of the unremitting US strategy of Latin American interventions.

John Perry, based in Nicaragua, is with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition and writes for the London Review of Books, FAIR, and CovertActionRoger D. Harris is with the Task Force on the Americas, the US Peace Council, and the Venezuela Solidarity NetworkRead other articles by John Perry and Roger D. Harris.

 

Citizens and Government Actions in Economics, Trade, and Financial


Read Part 1 and 2.

A. Trade Measures & Market Signaling

Economic pressure can be applied instantly and scaled without violence.

Immediate Measures (within a week)

Government boycott US goods and services
A very powerful signal which over time will be felt.

Targeted tariffs on selected U.S. goods
Symbolic but high-visibility sectors send a clear message.

Suspend trade facilitation talks
A peaceful pause that signals deep concern.

Freeze U.S. participation in public procurement – military procurement in particular
A nonviolent way to reduce influence.

Competition law review of U.S. corporations
A legal tool to scrutinise market dominance.

Longer-Term Measures

EU–Asia–Africa trade corridors
Reducing reliance on U.S. markets.

European supply chains for critical minerals
Strategic autonomy in resource access.

European Strategic Trade Authority
Monitoring coercive practices globally.

Euro-denominated commodity markets
Weakening the dollar’s pricing monopoly.

The EU must resume contacts and negotiations with Russia, focusing on energy cooperation
To stop the US economic warfare on Europe, not least since the destruction of Nord Stream.

Stop accepting the US secondary sanctions
Trade with countries that are in your interest. Accepting US control of whom you deal with is a loss of sovereignty.

Join the Belt & Road Initiative, BRI
No less than 140+ countries participate, just not the West as a bloc.

B. Financial Countermeasures & De-Dollarisation

The most powerful nonviolent tools are financial; diversification is the long-term path to stability.

Immediate Measures (within a week)

Freeze new purchases of U.S. Treasuries
A peaceful and powerful signal.

Review dollar exposure in reserves
Central banks announce diversification.

Task force on alternative payment systems
A first step toward non-SWIFT infrastructure and an opportunity to work with those who are already developing it.

Suspend new U.S. listings on European exchanges
A symbolic but impactful pause.

Longer-Term Measures

Non-SWIFT payment systems
Euro-SWIFT, CIPS interoperability, regional clearing houses, seek cooperation directly with China too.

CBDC settlement networks
Digital currencies enabling non-U.S. cross-border payments.

Nonaligned Payments Corridor
A global alternative to U.S. financial dominance.

Global bond benchmark independent of U.S. Treasuries
A structural shift in global finance.

C. Corporate, Institutional & Citizen-Driven Actions

Citizens hold enormous nonviolent power; when millions change their consumption patterns, markets shift.

Immediate Measures (within a week)

Global boycott of U.S. products and services
A voluntary, moral, nonviolent act of resistance.

Consumer campaigns (“Don’t Buy From the Bully”)
Guides and challenges encouraging non-U.S. alternatives.

Pension fund reviews of U.S. political risk
Savings should not finance destabilising behaviour.

Shareholder activism
Resolutions demanding diversification away from U.S. markets.

NGO scorecards
Ranking banks and corporations by U.S. entanglement.

Avoid investment or company establishment in the US
Instead, turn to the rest of the world.

Longer-Term Measures

Ethical consumption networks
Sustained alternatives to U.S. brands.

Long-term divestment campaigns
Reducing exposure to U.S. equities.

Consumer Sovereignty Index
Tracking corporate dependence on U.S. markets.

Financial literacy movements
Teaching how everyday purchases reinforce global power structures.

Part 3 Summary

Economic and financial measures can be deployed within hours and scaled over years. Immediate actions send shockwaves; long-term strategies build a resilient, multipolar financial order where no single state dominates global trade or value creation. And this is an area where citizens and government have similar interests and can act in unison.

Jan Oberg is a peace researcher, art photographer, and Director of The Transnational (TFF) where this article first appeared. Reach him at: oberg@transnational.orgRead other articles by Jan.

 USA


A Victory for the Resistance to ICE and Trump


Sunday 15 February 2026, by Dan La Botz


The resistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and to President Donald Trump’s mass deportation program won a victory last week when Trump and Border Czar Tom Homan announced that they were ending the ICE surge in Minneapolis. [1]

At its peak there were 3,000 ICE and Border agents conducting violent raids in the city, beating, gassing, and murdering two of the city’s residents. ICE’s violent tactics had led to a militant resistance as thousands rallied to challenge ICE, blowing whistles to alert people to the raids, shouting “ICE out!” at the officers, blocking streets and following their cars. The movement in the streets and the national reaction to the violence and violation of civil rights led to a national outcry and Trump was forced to retreat.

At the same time in Congress the Democrats, who have become notorious for their timidity in the face of Trump, have for once taken a firm stand against Trump and ICE. Democrats have demanded that ICE agents remove their masks, that they get warrants to arrest people, wear body cameras to record their actions, and avoid locations such as schools, churches, and hospitals. The Democrats and Republicans passed the majority of the budget, but the Democrats refused to pass the budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that includes ICE, and Congress adjourned. Last year, however, Congress voted about $80 billion for ICE, so it will not be affected whatever the vote. And Trump and the Republicans are unlikely to accede to any of the Democrats’ demands.

While Congress may be paralyzed, the people are not. Throughout the country protest demonstrations against ICE continue. I went to Southern California last week to visit family and friends in Imperial Beach where I grew up. At Mar Vista High School, my alma mater, students walked out of class, one boy holding up his skate board on which he had written, “Fuck ICE.” Thousands of high school students have walked out at scores of high schools across the country. Friends told me there was not a city or town in San Diego County that hadn’t had protests. While in Los Angeles, I accompanied a friend to the weekly protest being held in Culver City where a couple of hundred protesters gathered in front of city hall holding signs with slogans like “Abolish ICE, Protect Immigrants.” Hundreds of passing cars honked their horns in support.

The government is also on the offensive. DHS has subpoenaed tech companies such as Meta, Google, and Reddit demanding that they provide information about people posting criticism of ICE, including their names, addresses, and their IP internet number. The government has gone after organizations and individuals posting alerts about the presence of ICE in neighborhoods. The government has the capacity to identify cell phones carried in demonstrations and to recognize faces from photographs. Clearly these actions threaten our rights to assemble, to protest, and to speak in opposition to the government.

In the last month, we forced Trump to back down. The withdrawal of ICE troops from Minneapolis is a victory for our movement, but those agents and others will be sent to other Democratic Party led states and cities and into other immigrant communities to continue to remove members of our communities. ICE agents will continue to kidnap people from our neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces. Its agents, recruited for their rightwing politics and their brutality, are hardly likely to give up their vicious and brutal behavior. Our movement, already large and militant, has to become even bigger and braver, combining our street protests with political pressure.

15 February 2026

Footnotes

[1Donald Trump’s emissary, Tom Homan, at press conference in Minneapolis on 12 February 2026. (STEPHEN MATUREN / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA

Frame-Checking “Insurgency” in Minnesota


Trump administration officials, joined by a chorus of Republican politicians and right-wing media pundits, have been referring to public demonstrations against ICE in Minneapolis as an “insurgency,” a term typically used to refer to violent, armed rebellion, especially when it involves irregular forces opposing a larger, well-equipped military or state power.

On the surface, the use of the term to characterize these demonstrations appears aimed at justifying Donald Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act, which grants presidents authority to deploy military forces domestically to suppress civil disorder. But a closer analysis of how the use of “insurgency” frames the demonstrations reveals even higher stakes.

As an interpretive frame for making sense of events in Minneapolis, “insurgency” characterizes demonstrators as military adversaries of the United States and thus legitimizes federal agents’ use of physical force against them. Frames are central organizing ideas for making sense of events and suggesting what is at stake.

Seeing recent headlines, we began reflecting on lessons from Project Censored’s guide to frame-checking, a term we coined to promote critical inquiry into news stories that might be fundamentally misleading even when they are factually accurate. In Beyond Fact-Checking, we likened frame-checking to a pair of X-ray glasses that help reveal “the hidden structures of a news story that might otherwise influence our understanding of an issue without our awareness.”

Frame-checking claims of “insurgency” exposes how Trumpist interests sought to establish the insurgency frame, how it distorts understanding of events in Minneapolis, and what people can do to establish community protection, civil resistance, and human rights counterframes.

Establishing “Insurgency” as an Interpretive Frame

On January 15, a week after an ICE agent murdered Renée Good, Trump accused “professional agitators and insurrectionists” of “attacking the Patriots of I.C.E.” and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act. A wide range of establishment news outlets quoted Trump’s Truth Social post, including the Washington PostUSA Today, and The Hill, though none referenced “insurgents” or “insurgency” in Minnesota.

Those characterizations were the work of White House officials, congressional Republicans, and right-wing pundits.

Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, for example, told The Charlie Kirk Show that Minnesota lawmakers were leading “an insurgency against the federal government,” while Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, a Navy SEAL veteran, posted on X, “This needs to be addressed for what it is: an insurrection, domestic insurgency.”

Right-wing media amplified the theme of “insurgency” in Minneapolis. Asserting that the “death of Renee Good … has been used to propagandize against ICE,” Rich Lowry, the National Review’s editor-in-chief, wrote, “Insurgencies feed off their martyrs.”

Earlier, the January 12 episode of Fox News’s “Ingraham Angle” featured “An Insurgency, Not a Protest” as its headline, accompanied by the image of a red Democratic donkey emblazoned with a communist hammer and sickle. As Media Matters for America reported, show host Laura Ingraham “described pro-immigrant activists in Minnesota as ‘insurgents’ and as an ‘insurgency’ multiple times” throughout the episode, “practically begging Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.” Trump may not have acted on Ingraham’s pleas, but it seems likely that her monologue informed and perhaps inspired his January 15 Truth Social post.

A January 30 Fox News segment, “How Minneapolis Agitator Networks Use Insurgency Tactics to Hinder ICE,” sought to cement the frame’s validity. Fox extensively quoted a “retired CIA senior operations officer,” Rick de la Torre, who “tracked insurgency groups globally for 20 years”—and provided links to CIA and US Army manuals on insurgency. de la Torre described “anti-ICE tactics in Minneapolis” as “textbook violent revolution.”

The Fox report concluded with a timeline of a dozen incidents leading up to and following the killing of Alex Pretti by US Customs and Border Protection agents, detailing the tactics allegedly used by ICE Watch and each incident’s corresponding “insurgency doctrine.” Fox’s interpretation of the latter exemplifies many of the pitfalls of selective interpretation of orthodox texts, not least of which are confirmation bias and the illusory truth effect, which the Propwatch Project identifies as “core drivers” of propaganda.

Impact of the “Insurgency” Frame

Some of the more extreme claims in right-wing reporting and commentary on the Minneapolis “insurgency” are demonstrably false. They do not withstand fact-checking, which focuses on whether reporting accurately reflects the world, and is an elementary component of media literacy. But other claims require critical analysis that goes beyond fact-checking.

Consider, for example, the evidence provided by Fox News on January 26 to support pundit Jesse Watters’s claims that the Minnesota insurgency is “more sophisticated than you think.” The segment then cut to live coverage from one of Fox’s field reporters, who asserted, “This is an organized movement here. There’s communication. There’s food. There’s notices. There’s notifications.”

He forgot to mention the whistles! Or that, on the other side, ICE and CPB agents were armed with military-grade weaponry, including advanced weapons lasers and firearm suppressors, which the New York Times described as “instruments of war, fine-tuned and perfected for killing at short range.”

Frame-checking alerts us to what’s left out of frame, as in the case of Fox’s allegation of “insurgency” on the basis of demonstrators’ use of Signal groups, while ignoring ICE spending to arm its agents. But frame-checking also helps news readers and viewers see more clearly how, at its most basic, the insurgency frame situates community members engaging in constitutionally-protected activities—including the First Amendment rights to assemble and to petition the government—as military adversaries.

“When you start using the language of warfare and treating someone who has an opposing view as a terrorist or an insurgent,” Seth G. Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the New York Times, “that legitimizes use of violence against them.”

Lessons from Standing Rock

Jones’s point is underscored by 2017 research on media coverage of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Natalie Gyenes and her colleagues examined important distinctions between characterizations of participants as “protesters” and “protectors.” Media coverage tended to characterize participants as “protesters,” even though Gyenes and her team found that this label provided “a narrow view of events,” focusing on environmental concerns rather than broader resistance or Native sovereignty rights.

Instead, Native American demonstrators, such as Iyuskin American Horse of the Sicangu/Oglala Lakota, characterized themselves as “protectors,” who were “peacefully defending our land and our ways of life.” As Gyenes and her colleagues concluded, the language of “protectors” underscored “what these individuals and communities were fighting for, not fighting against.”

These insights shed light on a second critical aspect of framing in the Minneapolis case. The insurgency frame not only situates demonstrators as military adversaries, but it also characterizes their aims as antiAmerican, while erasing what they are demonstrating for.

“What these groups are trying to do is destroy everything that makes America great. … That means the end of free enterprise and America as we know it,” de la Torre, the retired CIA officer, told Fox.

Similarly, in her January 12 commentary, Ingraham warned viewers of “foreign agitators” and a “hard left” that believes “America and our system is irredeemable,” effectively portraying demonstrators as ignorant dupes.

By contrast, Media Matters for America covered many of the same points in a report whose title contrasted dramatically with the right-wing “insurgency” news frame. In “Right-Wing Media Are Describing Pro-Immigrant Minnesota Activists Using the Language of War,” John Knefel and Sophie Lawton characterize the demonstrators as “activists” who are “pro-immigrant” and engaged in “civil resistance.” These three terms provide a fundamental counterpoint to right-wing claims of insurgents using guerrilla tactics to provoke “civil war” against the United States.

Counterframing

News frames pervasively shape our understanding of events and interpretation of facts, but they are neither deterministic nor permanent. Right-wing framing of civil resistance in Minneapolis as “insurgency” doesn’t make it so, even if the aim is to persuade people that it is. Frames gain cultural traction not because they are absolutely true, but because they are repeated across outlets and platforms—often in a sensationalistic or fear-mongering way, as seen in Ingraham’s Minnesota coverage—and resonant with people’s pre-existing beliefs.

Counterframes, therefore, must offer coherent narratives that resonate with audiences’ lived experiences and existing values. Further, they should disrupt corporate media’s facade of “objectivity” by identifying deliberate slant embedded in storytelling, including charged metaphors, analogies, and word choices.

Frame-checking highlights how news coverage is frequently the site of subtle but consequential conflicts between competing factions to establish the prominence of their preferred interpretive frames. And ultimately, whether civil resistance is understood as a democratic right or an existential threat has material consequences for how the public responds, and how authorities justify their actions and potentially evade accountability. In other words, when the establishment press frames human rights protests as “disruptions,” your alarms should sound.

Counterframes challenge how corporate media and right-wing politicians treat dissent.

Consider how community protection, civil resistance, or human rights frames might complicate and contest right-wing reporting. Who might a journalist consult to tell these stories? For example, speaking with community members and organizers, rather than politicians, who are distantly connected to the issue or have differing interests, allows for interconnected, solutions-based, people-centered coverage. Frames focused on community protection or human rights should ideally prioritize the voices of those directly affected, including families, legal observers, medics, and grassroots advocates.

How, too, might journalists situate contemporary action in the context of history, of US traditions of civil rights and antiwar protests? If we put on our X-ray glasses when we read the dominant narratives about Minneapolis ICE protests, we can see how much of what is presented as “common sense” reporting is, in fact, the product of layered framing decisions. But this type of reporting recklessly strips protests of historical context, severing them from long US traditions of civil disobedience, abolitionism, labor organizing, and civil rights protests, in which leaders and status quo media alike condemned protesters as dangerous, unruly, or distinctly un-American.

Who gets to define “violence,” “order,” or “safety”? These decisions are never neutral.

When property damage or traffic delays are reported more prominently, or exclusively, over deportations, family separations, the expansion of surveillance, or deaths in detention centers, the audience is nudged toward identifying with the state rather than with those being harmed by it.

Counterframes contest status quo narratives; provide platforms for those engaged in dissent to voice their experiences and aims; and remind the public that when right-wing media invoke the language of war to report on community protest, it is often a distraction from another disturbing reality.

This first appeared on https://www.projectcensored.org/frame-checking-insurgency-minnesota/