By Carlos Aznarez
December 5, 2025

The author is editor of resumenlatinoamericano.org.

Translation: John Catalinotto

What happened in the Honduran elections exceeds all expectations in terms of destabilizing interference by the U.S. government. The recent elections in Argentina had already shown that Trump not only creates obsequious subjects but also does everything possible to debase politics, destroying any kind of institutional normality.

In Argentina, his threat to liquidate the country if Milei was not voted in had the effect he desired, and the consequences of that fear-driven vote will be paid for by Argentinians for at least another two years, unless some unforeseen event changes the outcome.

But those who operate in this way (now known as the “Trump style”), imposing their “finger” to support one candidate, demonizing the rest, bypassing all the barriers imposed by bourgeois democracy itself, are tempted to raise the stakes, and that is what he has now done in Honduras.

Thus, Uncle Sam’s representative decided, on the one hand, that in order to defeat “the communists of the LIBRE party,” it was necessary to make it clear that all eyes should be on “his” candidate from the National Party, the far-right Nasry Tito Asfura (alias “the daddy of law and order”). In the same move, Trump decided that “a good man” like former narco-president Juan Orlando Hernández, known worldwide as JOH, should be pardoned.

A few hours later, this criminal, JOH, who had been classified as one of the biggest drug lords and who had acted with impunity for years thanks to his position, was able to regain his freedom and was compensated by the empire for having spent a short time in U.S. prisons. He had been sentenced to 45 years and only served one, a record of shamelessness sponsored by Washington, whose leader continues to insist on sinking fishing boats in the Caribbean Sea to demonstrate his aggressive belligerence in the face of the dignity of the Revolution led by President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.

There is no doubt that the unexpected decision to grant JOH a pardon is one that must have been taken in agreement with those who drive the National Party of candidate Asfura, and surely also with the knowledge — at least that, even if they deny it — of Salvador Nasrala’s liberals. Such an action can only be described as an “electoral coup,” cunningly carried out by the U.S. president, with the reprehensible green light of the “democrats” of the Honduran two-party system.

Trump evokes ‘Cold War’ vibes

The result is well known: LIBRE candidate Rixi Moncada came in third in an election that smacked of fraud from every angle, and in the context of a maneuver aimed at removing her from office, which seeks, as Trump himself made clear, to defeat “communism” (evoking the days of the “Cold War”).

The fundamental issue in this new coup episode is that the same imperialism that has destroyed countries with its wars or its plans of plunder and hunger has now become an arrogant arbiter that threatens peoples and determines who should lead this or that country.

The same power-monger who, from the White House, attacks Bolivarian Venezuela on a daily basis, threatens the Colombian president, tries to suffocate Cuba and attacks Nicaragua (just to mention his misdeeds in Our America), is normalizing a pattern of behavior that destroys any possibility of democratizing politics. Moreover, it serves to alienate entire populations from politics.

The gunman Trump and his accomplices on every continent do as they please with total impunity. It is in this sense that the Honduran elections will go down in history as an example of imperialist action to undermine the self-determination of a people whose government has benefited the most humble and, beyond some communication errors about its achievements, has been able to put on its feet, until this unhappy present, a country that the U.S. has always considered its aircraft carrier in Central America.

LIBRE and its future: Trump was not alone in his coup attempt

Just as the ruling party had profusely announced, the TREP (Transmission of Preliminary Election Results) fraud was also set in motion. This “institution,” taken over by the opposition, determined, a few hours after the polls closed, that the right wing in its two variants (Liberals and Conservatives) had doubled the votes of the LIBRE candidate.

It was the second proof of the plan to destabilize the elections, not because a defeat for LIBRE was impossible, but because the huge difference smacks of foul play. Beyond knowing that this time the Resistance party competed alone and not as it did when it won the election with Xiomara Castro accompanied by Nasrala as vice president.

Returning to the infamous TREP, the politically logical thing would have been, if it was known in advance that this was where the trap would be set, not to have endorsed it by sitting the LIBRE advisor at the table. This way when the results were read, suspiciously inflated for the bipartisan duo, the manipulation should not have been validated. But this also happens because progressivism, in general, as we have seen on the continent, finds it difficult to show guts in the face of those who attack it, and is almost always overwhelmed by its lukewarmness.

In a similar situation, the example of Venezuela and its revolutionary government is the polar opposite. They would never have accepted such an attack on the self-determination of a people. It is just one example, but it is worth bearing in mind, because similar maneuvers are sure to come.

Another mistake made by LIBRE was the failure of its candidate to appear in public that same Sunday night to denounce what had happened. There are situations that cannot be resolved with tweets or press releases, and this was one of them. It would have been more than necessary to show up and call on the people to comply with the slogan of “defend the vote,” at the polls or in the streets, something that had been repeated ad nauseam in the moments leading up to the election.

But this did not happen, and it was only the following night that Rixi Moncada explained at a press conference that more than 16,000 ballots, representing more than 500,000 votes, were under discussion.

Clearly affected by everything that had happened, Rixi did not fail to express that “the struggle continues.” The same was true of LIBRE’s leader, Mel Zelaya. And 48 hours after the preliminary announcement, advisor Marlon Ochoa gave more details of what is undoubtedly fraud, warning that failures in the biometric system and the withholding of thousands of ballots compromise the transparency and integrity of the results.

Against this backdrop, there are no international voices to be heard, unlike when they shouted themselves hoarse demanding that the Venezuelan government “show the records” of the election that enshrined Maduro. Even with regard to the records, there is class struggle. Apparently, some are more valuable than others.

Now we will have to see what LIBRE’s real potential is in terms of mass mobilization to face such a difficult situation as the one imposed on it by its enemies.

Give voice to the grassroots

On such occasions, it has been proven that, regardless of what the leadership thinks, it is necessary to give a voice to those at the bottom, those men and women who put their bodies on the line and even died in the great and epic battles of the Resistance, during the 2009 coup against President Mel Zelaya and afterwards. Because they were precisely the ones who created the conditions for Xiomara Castro to become president.

Finally, a reflection that goes beyond what is happening in Honduras: Trump and his fascist style of public action have become a danger to the people. His threats of military aggression against Venezuela and the repetition of maneuvers (which were also carried out before, but more covertly) to intervene in the political activities of each country must be strongly repudiated.

If this is not done, the empire’s authoritarianism will continue to advance, and in many cases, with regard to the electoral process, it will have the consent not only of local oligarchies but also of social sectors that are the first to suffer the unpleasant consequences of social genocide.