For months, observers have wondered about the possibility of Nicaragua becoming the White House’s next target, following in the footsteps of Venezuela and Cuba. After the arrest of the Venezuelan dictator in January and the intensification of economic sanctions against Cuba, the expectation was that Washington would turn its attention to the Central American country, especially after its leader, Daniel Ortega, ruled out new elections.
However, the United States government has shown little intention of taking drastic action against Nicaragua. Meanwhile, the Nicaraguan presidential couple, Daniel Ortega and his wife Rosario Murillo, maintained a cautious stance so as not to provoke the Trump administration.
A few days after the American operation in Venezuela, Nicaragua implemented measures seen as a nod to Washington.
The Nicaraguan government released dozens of prisoners, a US demand, and later reinstated the need for visas for Cuban citizens, a measure that restricted immigration to North America.
New sanctions were imposed by the US in April, this time targeting two of Ortega and Murillo’s children. The American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, raised his tone against Managua, criticizing Ortega’s statement about the cancellation of the elections, but, so far, he has not explicitly proposed a change of regime, as he did in relation to Cuba.
Professor Kai Thaler, from the Department of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, stated that, for Marco Rubio, Cuba is of much greater importance than Nicaragua. He also highlighted that Nicaragua does not have the same natural resources found in Venezuela.
Another key distinction, according to Thaler, is that Nicaragua is governed by a family structure and does not have an obvious successor like Delcy Rodríguez in Venezuela, who assumed leadership after the US capture of Nicolás Maduro.
All leadership alternatives within the country were suppressed by Ortega and Murillo, the expert concluded.
The United States’ strategic approach
The United States’ strategy in relation to Nicaragua differs from the tactics applied to Caracas and Havana, according to an analysis by Manuel Orozco, a Nicaraguan political scientist and director of the Migration, Remittances and Development Program of the Inter-American Dialogue, based in the USA.
The analyst reported that the White House seeks to avoid actions that could trigger migratory crises or intensify repression in the country. Instead, it bets on gradual transformations, without direct intervention.
One interpretation is that political inertia in the Murillo and Ortega dictatorship could generate internal conflicts, economic slowdown and possible social protests where the US could exert pressure, Orozco said. He added that if there were to be an intervention at this time, the effect on a political transition would be uncertain.
He emphasized that the Sandinista government, in power since 2007, is not facing economic instability or significant street demonstrations. Therefore, American intervention would now be forcing a transition.
In this delicate scenario for the US, the Ortega-Murillo government can take advantage of the circumstances to maintain a low profile, he noted.
In April, Ortega made unusual public comments, calling American sanctions against his children “mentally disturbed.” Three months later, he announced the end of the elections and described Maduro’s capture as a “monstrosity”.
Thaler said these statements suggest that the Nicaraguan government does not believe the United States will focus on Nicaragua, and that Ortega feels safe criticizing and insulting the American administration in this way.
Orozco suggested that the statement made in April was primarily a message to the government’s inner ranks.
He explained that, in a pejorative way, the stance can be interpreted as letting the “dog bark, but not bite”. It is a symbolic gesture for the internal base, reinforcing the idea that they are still anti-imperialist, although the reality is different, with no expressed solidarity with Venezuela or Cuba in rhetoric or foreign policy.
The Nicaraguan government, which usually does not comment to the press, did not respond to requests.
Orozco said the United States has applied a series of pressures through sanctions, to which Nicaragua responds rarely, in an almost constant pattern.
He said a misreading gives the impression that Nicaragua will come after Venezuela and Cuba, and that the only US policy is direct intervention. There is no calculation as to what this means; no one considers what it would mean for the US to remove these people from power when there is no opposition, citizens do not know the leaders in exile and there is economic stability. It’s speculation about something uncertain, he said.
With that caveat, Orozco mentioned that the United States may be thinking long term, with an eye on general elections theoretically scheduled for November 2027, if Ortega does not carry out his threat to cancel them.
They are planning to synchronize pressure for some type of reform to be implemented, Orozco said. He considered it likely that the US would not miss the opportunity for Nicaragua to undergo a democratic transformation.
Meanwhile, Thaler stressed that the United States currently does not pay much attention to Nicaragua and does not expect that situation to change.
There are sanctions against regime officials, but it happens every three to six months, Thaler said. It is not a sign of greater attention than usual, and it is difficult to imagine a significant change in US policy towards Nicaragua, as the country is currently at war with Iran. There is a pressure campaign against Cuba that has not brought many results, and without new developments, no major change is expected.
The stability of the family dynasty in power
Ortega and Murillo are always willing to negotiate with the United States, even without an established dialogue table, Thaler noted.
Signs like prisoner releases are superficial concessions to reduce US pressure without threatening its power, without actually giving in on crucial points, he emphasized.
The analyst concluded that elections and democracy in Nicaragua are far from possible at this time, mainly due to the absence of a unified opposition.
The opposition is very fragmented, with prominent figures such as activist and academic Félix Madariaga striving to maintain the Nicaraguan cause in the global and American debate, but it lacks unity and a common cause beyond the end of the dictatorship.
Although part of the opposition hopes for a possible internal split in the government, analysts agree that this scenario is unlikely.
There do not appear to be any alternatives within the regime or great possibilities of any rupture, Thaler said. There is the possibility of another family succession by one of the sons, like Laureano, but there are no generals or vice presidents who could emerge as an alternative.
The most plausible scenario is the continuity of the regime, with Rosario Murillo in an increasingly stronger position. Daniel, at 80 years old, is less present in public life. Rosario, aged 74, is much more active in daily management. There is a growing role in politics for Laureano and his other children, but, so far, there is no sign of any possibility of transition, he reaffirmed.
Both analysts confirmed that Murillo, who received the title of co-president in February 2025, is already in charge. This also appears to be the perception of the State Department, which has begun to mention Murillo’s name before Ortega’s in its communications, a possible recognition of his growing political influence.
Historically, there was a perception that a transition to Rosario would cause cracks in the Sandinista Front, Thaler said. This is still possible, but today’s Front is very different from that of a decade ago. It is not just a personalist party, this is also due to Rosario, who worked to ensure that people in positions of power are loyal to him, and not just to Daniel, he said, indicating that the presidential couple maintains strict control over security forces and social control mechanisms.
However, Orozco suggested that Murillo does not have a popular base of his own and remains dependent on Ortega’s image. Its political capital with the army is quite functional, transactional in nature. They are allowed to manage resources, but if pressure arises or the cost-benefit ratio changes, support will begin to wane. Internally, there is a balance of power in her favor, but it is not solid enough to guarantee that she will reach 2027, he noted.
Orozco questioned the likelihood of success of a family dynasty that has lasted almost two decades and that could try to perpetuate itself with Laureano, highlighting that there are members of the family themselves who do not want this model.
In any case, Orozco highlighted the government’s resilience in dealing with challenges.
