
Religious leaders released from Nicaraguan prison say their experience only strengthens their faith
God's message didn't immediately make sense to pastor José Luis Orozco. But when U.S. efforts resulted in his release from a Nicaraguan prison a few months later, everything became clear.
'The Lord had told me: 'Don't be afraid, José Luis. A wind will blow from the north, your chains will break and the doors will open,'' the pastor said from his new home in Austin, Texas.
By September 2024, he had spent nine months behind bars. With 12 other Nicaraguan members of the Texas-based evangelical Christian organization Mountain Gateway, he faced charges like money laundering and illicit enrichment. Just like them, other faith leaders had been imprisoned during a crackdown that organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, have said are attacks on religious freedom.
Orozco thought his innocence would eventually surface. So when the U.S. government announced that it had secured his release along with other political prisoners, he wasn't completely surprised.
'That's when I understood,' the pastor said. 'God was telling me he would act through the United States.'
In the hours following the announcement, 135 Nicaraguans were escorted to Guatemala, where most sought paths to settle in other countries.
Why did Nicaragua imprison religious leaders?
Tensions between President Daniel Ortega and Nicaraguan faith leaders began in 2018, when a social security reform sparked massive protests that were met with a crackdown. Relations worsened as religious figures rejected political decisions harming Nicaraguans and Ortega moved aggressively to silence his critics.
Members of Catholic and Evangelical churches have denounced surveillance and harassment from the government. Processions aren't allowed and investigations have been launched into both pastors and priests. CSW, a British-based group that advocates for religious freedom, documented 222 cases affecting Nicaraguans in 2024.
'Religious persecution in Nicaragua is the cruelest Latin America has seen in years,' said Martha Patricia Molina, a Nicaraguan lawyer who keeps a record of religious freedom violations. 'But the church has always accomplished its mission of protecting human life.'
Spreading the gospel
Orozco was the first member of his family to become evangelical. He felt called to the ministry at age 13 and convinced relatives to follow in his footsteps. He began preaching in Managua, urging different churches to unite.
His experience became key for Mountain Gateway's missionary work. Founded by American pastor Jon Britton Hancock, it began operating in Nicaragua in 2013.
CSW had warned that religious leaders defending human rights or speaking critically of the government can face violence and arbitrary detention. But Hancock and Orozco said their church never engaged in political discourse.
While maintaining good relations with officials, Mountain Gateway developed fair-trade coffee practices and offered disaster relief to families affected by hurricanes.
By the time Orozco was arrested, his church had hosted mass evangelism campaigns in eight Nicaraguan cities, including Managua, where 230,000 people gathered with the government's approval in November 2023.
An unexpected imprisonment
Orozco and 12 other members of Mountain Gateway were arrested the next month.
'They chained us hand and foot as if we were high-risk inmates,' he recalled. 'None of us heard from our families for nine months.'
The prison where he was taken hosted around 7,000 inmates, but the cells where the pastors were held were isolated from the others.
The charges they faced weren't clarified until their trial began three months later. No information was provided to their relatives, who desperately visited police stations and prisons asking about their whereabouts.
'We still had faith this was all a confusion and everything would come to light,' Orozco said.
'But they sentenced us to the maximum penalty of 12 years and were ordered to pay $84 million without a right to appeal.'
Preaching in prison
Fasting and prayer helped him endure prison conditions. Pastors weren't given drinking water or Bibles, but his faith kept him strong.
'The greatest war I've fought in my Christian life was the mental battle I led in that place,' Orozco recalled.
Guards didn't prevent pastors from preaching, so they ministered to each other. According to the pastor, they were mocked, but when they were released, a lesson came through.
'That helped them see that God performed miracles,' he said. 'We always told them: Someday we'll leave this place.'
Molina said that several faith leaders who fled Nicaragua have encountered barriers imposed by countries unprepared to address their situation. According to the testimonies she gathered, priests have struggled to relocate and minister, because passports are impossible to obtain, and foreign parishes require documents that they can't request.
But Orozco fared differently. He shares his testimony during the services he leads in Texas, where he tries to rebuild his life.
'I arrived in the United States just like God told me,' the pastor said. 'So I always tell people: 'If God could perform such a miracle for me, he could do it for you too.''
Laymen were targets too
Onboard the plane taking Orozco to Guatemala was Francisco Arteaga, a Catholic layman imprisoned in June 2024 for voicing his concerns over Ortega's restrictions on religious freedom.
'After 2018, when the protests erupted, I started denouncing the abuses occurring at the churches,' Arteaga said. 'For example, police sieges on the parks in front of the parishes.'
Initially, he relied on Facebook posts, but later he joined a network of Nicaraguans who documented violations of religious freedom throughout the country.
'We did not limit ourselves to a single religious aspect,' said Arteaga, whose personal devices were hacked and monitored by the government. 'We documented the prohibitions imposed on processions, the fees charged at church entrances and restrictions required inside the sanctuaries.'
Arteaga witnessed how police officers detained parishioners praying for causes that were regarded as criticism against Ortega.
According to CSW, the government monitors religious activities, putting pressure on leaders to practice self-censorship.
'Preaching about unity or justice or praying for the general situation in the country can be considered criticism of the government and treated as a crime,' said CSW's latest report.
Building a new life
Prison guards also denied a Bible to Arteaga, but an inmate lent him his.
It was hard for him to go through the Scripture, given that his glasses were taken away after his arrest, but he managed to read it back-to-back twice.
'I don't even know how God granted me the vision to read it,' said Arteaga, who couldn't access his diabetes medicine during his imprisonment. 'That gave me strength.'
He eventually reunited with his wife and children in Guatemala, where he spent months looking for a new home to resettle. He recently arrived in Bilbao, Spain, and though he misses his country, his time in prison shaped his understanding of life.
'I've taken on the task, as I promised God in prison, of writing a book about faith,' Arteaga said. 'The title will be: 'Faith is not only believing.''
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Tom's Guide
25 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
Trump just gave TikTok an extension on ban — here's what we know
Apparently, there is a calendar alert in the White House letting President Trump know when to delay enforcing the U.S. TikTok ban. Reportedly, Trump will sign a new executive order pushing the ban back by 90 days, more than the previous two 75-day delays from January and April, and the third time the president has delayed enforcement. The current delay is set to expire this Thursday (June 19). White Press secretary Karoline Levitt gave a statement to CNN revealing that the extension should be signed in the next few days. "President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark," Levitt said in her statement. "This extension will last 90 days, which the Administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure." In May, Trump indicated during an interview with Meet the Press that he would delay the TikTok ban again, adding that he has a "warm spot" for the social media platform. At the time he claimed that a deal was in the works to keep TikTok available. Prior to the ban going into effect and since, Trump has repeatedly sought some American-based company or consortium to purchase the U.S. assets of TikTok. Mutliple offers have allegedly been put forward from Amazon to software giant Oracle and even the YouTuber MrBeast and Elon Musk. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. ByteDance, the Chinese parent company behind TikTok, has equally time and again asserted that it is not interested in selling. Additionally, any deal needs to be approved by the Chinese government, which reportedly pulled out of a potential deal in April due to Trump's imposed tariffs against Chinese goods that had reached 145% taxation at its highest. A lot has happened since the TikTok ban discussion kicked off in 2020 during Trump's first administration; here's a full timeline. The ban was cemented in place when President Joe Biden signed it into law in April of 2024. Since the law was signed, Trump changed his tune saying how much he liked the app and that he would seek to stop the ban. The bill signed by Biden was upheld by the Supreme Court this past January. From there Trump has been delaying the ban and allegedly attempting to strike a deal with ByteDance and China to see the app sold. Assuming nothing changes between now and September, which at this point it likely won't, we'll find out if Trump delays enforcement once again around the same time the iPhone 17 series launches.


Newsweek
39 minutes ago
- Newsweek
ICE Raids Venue of Trump's Former Business Rival
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Federal immigration authorities raided Delta Downs Racetrack Casino Hotel in Vinton, Louisiana, Tuesday as part of a targeted effort to locate undocumented workers within the U.S. racehorse industry. The business is owned by Nevada-based Boyd Gaming. The Boyd family was once considered a rival of President Donald Trump's business empire, when the then-mogul operated a number of casinos. "Our Company complies fully with federal labor laws, and to our knowledge, no Delta Downs team members were involved in this matter. We will cooperate with law enforcement as requested," said David Strow, a spokesperson for Boyd Gaming, in a statement to Newsweek. The Delta Downs racetrack in Vinton, Louisiana, is owned and operated by Boyd Gaming. The Delta Downs racetrack in Vinton, Louisiana, is owned and operated by Boyd Gaming. Courtesy KPLC In a lengthy statement about the operation, ICE said it had arrested approximately 84 illegal immigrants at the track, and that at least two had previous criminal records. "An investigation into potential criminal conduct related to the hiring of the illegal aliens remains ongoing and an assessment of whether any civil penalties are appropriate is being conducted," the ICE statement read. Why It Matters Trump has vowed to carry out the largest mass deportation operation in United States history. However, the policy has sparked concerns about its potential ripple effects on the economy. Immigration agents have been conducting raids across the country as they look to remove millions of migrants without legal status amid Trump's hard-line mass removal policy. The White House has said that anyone living in the country "illegally" is a criminal. Critics say the raids sow fear within immigrant communities. What To Know The Boyd family operates several properties in Las Vegas, where Trump maintains partial ownership of the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas. Boyd Gaming also once partnered with MGM on the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa in Atlantic City, which was meant to compete against Trump's former properties there before they entered bankruptcy. According to a report from the Daily Racing Form, the raid at Delta Downs focused on backstretch workers, many of whom are vital to the daily operations of horse training and care. Witnesses described a large federal presence, with ICE agents entering dormitories and on-site worker housing. ICE said the operation "focused on the businesses that own and race thoroughbred and quarter horses out of the stables at the racetrack and the employees who work for them and take care of the horses." Vinton Police Chief Scott Spell said his department was notified Tuesday morning about a coordinated operation involving Louisiana State Police, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). He clarified that Vinton Police were not involved, noting that Delta Downs falls outside the department's jurisdiction. Some business leaders have reached out to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to express concern that worker attendance is plummeting amid fears of potential ICE enforcement, with many laborers avoiding job sites entirely, according to the Daily Racing Form report. According to the American Business Immigration Coalition (ABIC), agricultural production could decline by $30 billion to $60 billion if Trump's deportation policy is fully enacted, while the American Immigration Council projects that the president's policy could conservatively carry an operational cost of $315 billion for a one-time mass deportation. What People Are Saying ICE said in an unattributed statement: "The operation was conducted after authorities received intelligence indicating that the businesses operating out of the stables at the racetrack were employing unauthorized workers. Those suspicions were further confirmed during a subsequent site visit." Ed Fenasci, the executive director of the Louisiana HBPA, said: "With the feds involved, there's not much we can do or say." Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Kayla Vincent said its officers "provided limited support by helping search the premises."


Time Magazine
43 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Upholds Gender-Affirming-Care Ban. Here's What to Know
The Supreme Court has delivered a major blow to transgender rights with its decision to uphold a Tennessee law that bars doctors from providing gender-affirming care including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgical procedures for trans minors in the state. The Wednesday decision in the landmark U.S. v. Skrmetti case is expected to upend access to healthcare for trans and nonbinary youth far beyond Tennessee. While the ruling does not ban gender-affirming care nationwide, it permits the at least 25 bans that states have passed against medical and surgical care for transgender youth. Some states, such as Florida, have similarly moved to restrict access to such care for adults. The opinion comes as the Trump Administration targets transgender Americans on the federal level as well, seeking to bar requests for updated gender markers on federal identification documents that align with the holder's gender identity and releasing a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report aiming to discredit gender-affirming care as treatment for individuals with gender dysphoria. The effort to bar accurate gender markers was blocked by a federal judge on Tuesday. The Supreme Court's decision will pose a significant obstacle for legal challenges to the mounting restrictions being placed on gender-affirming care across the country. In the ruling, the conservative majority rejected arguments that barring such care violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the court's 6-3 ruling. 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.' Here's what to know about the decision and how it will impact care. What does the Supreme Court's decision mean for gender-affirming care? The lawsuit at the core of the U.S. v. Skrmetti, filed by the families of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based medical provider, challenged the Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors under the equal protection clause, citing sex discrimination. The state of Tennessee, meanwhile, argued that the ban would help protect children from what it referred to as 'experimental' medical treatment, though every major medical and mental health association supports gender-affirming care as a legitimate health practice, per GLAAD. The justices found that the law is a standard state regulation on medical care and does not discriminate on the basis of sex. 'The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex,' the majority opinion reads. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissented. 'Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,' Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined in full by Jackson and in part by Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' The state of Tennessee is home to about 3,000 transgender youth, according to UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute. Nationwide, there are an estimated 300,000 transgender adolescents. The Supreme Court's ruling will also allow gender-affirming-care bans in states beyond Tennessee to go into effect, though it does not enact a nationwide ban. That means transgender minors living in a state with a ban will have to seek care in other states in order to continue receiving medication or other gender-affirming treatments. It is still unclear how the ruling could affect potential gender-affirming-care bans for adults, according to Alex Reinert, a constitutional law and civil rights professor at Cardozo School of Law. 'The court doesn't address that,' he says. 'But I think the reasoning that the court has provided would apply to attempts to regulate gender-affirming care for adults as well.' Many activists are lamenting the decision due to its potential effect on transgender youth. 'The biggest human tragedy here are the trans kids whose lives are going to be irrevocably changed as a result of not being able to get the best practice healthcare that their parents want them to get, [and] that their doctors want them to get,' says Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. A 2022 study published in the National Library of Medicine found that gender-affirming care was associated with lower odds of depression and suicidality. A 2024 peer-reviewed study in Nature Human Behaviour in collaboration with Trevor Project researchers found that anti-transgender state laws caused an uptick in suicide attempts among transgender youth by as much as 72%. 'Today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,' said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project who argued the case before the court, becoming the first out trans attorney to do so. 'We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.' What legal challenges could come next Legal experts say the decision will make it difficult to battle other gender-affirming-care bans, though not impossible. 'The question presented to the Supreme Court was pretty narrow. It was very specifically this question of whether or not discrimination against trans people constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex,' says Oakley. Cases that pertain to protected classes, such as sex and gender, are typically reviewed under the lens of heightened scrutiny. The level of scrutiny matters because it dictates the type of rationale the government must have for passing a law, says Reinert. The majority ruled on Skrmetti with a rational review, meaning that they believed the Tennessee law did not deal with those issues but instead with matters of age and 'the medical purpose for which the treatment is being sought,' Reinert says. 'The plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications. But neither of the above classifications turns on sex,' the majority opinion reads. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex. While SB1's prohibitions reference sex, the Court has never suggested that mere reference to sex is sufficient to trigger heightened scrutiny.' In cases regarding the rational basis reviews of the law, 'the state almost always wins,' Reinert says. Oakley says it's possible future plaintiffs could contest state laws based on parental rights over their child's medical treatment. Reinert concurs that additional legal challenges can be brought in the court system depending on the way other state laws are phrased or organized. But, he adds, the decision 'almost certainly makes those challenges much harder to succeed at.' What medical groups say about gender-affirming care Gender-affirming care is espoused as a medically accepted treatment by every major medical association in the U.S., including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and more. The American College of Pediatricians, which has been identified as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, filed an amicus brief in support of the state of Tennessee. The group was first founded in 2002 by members who opposed the American Academy of Pediatrics's endorsement of adoption by same-sex couples. Beyond the U.S., several European countries are assessing best practices for patients with gender dysphoria. The U.K. moved to ban puberty blocker prescriptions for youth in March 2024, citing a lack of evidence. Some doctors who treat patients with gender dysphoria have expressed disappointment with the court's ruling. 'Today's decision codifies the patchwork of state laws banning vs. allowing medically necessary healthcare for a singular group of young people into federal law,' Morissa Ladinsky, a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine and Child Health told TIME in an emailed statement. 'This emboldens a more sinister reality. Providers can now discriminate in the delivery of health care. We can treat patients differently on the basis of age, sex and gender. Because we can, does not mean we must.'