The question of whether to call the situation in Honduras a coup keeps popping up. In comments to a previous post, Matthew Shugart mentioned seeing the importance of the term "military coup." The specific wording comes from section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriation Act (see here for a U.S. embassy site discussing it). Anyone can call it a coup, which makes no difference. Apparently adding "military" is the key. I suppose someone could argue it is not a "military" coup if the military does not rule, even if the military was responsible for the physical act of overthrowing the president.
"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such government if the President determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office: Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to assistance to promote democratic elections or public participation in democratic processes: Provided further, That funds made available pursuant to the previous provisos shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations."