Categories Finance

Trump: US Is Strengthening Its Influence in South America

  • 2026年1月30日
  • Estimated read time 12 min read
  • 0 comments

Did he mean handle or choke-hold?

The unique modesty of President Donald J. Trump was on full display yesterday while speaking aboard Air Force One about Argentina’s mid-term elections. He congratulated himself on Javier Milei’s surprising victory, stating, “He had a lot of help from us… I gave him an endorsement, a very strong endorsement.”

Trump’s administration contributed significantly, providing a $20 billion swap line and facilitating a $20 billion bridge loan from Wall Street. The exact utilization of these funds remains uncertain. This came just six months after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) granted a $22 billion loan, backed by an additional $12 billion from the World Bank and $10 billion from the InterAmerican Development Bank.

All these institutions are based in Washington, and their assistance is tied to stringent conditions. Without this support, the Milei government could not have reached the elections with a stable economy. The central bank would have exhausted its reserves long ago, leading to a more severe collapse of the currency. Instead, investors are celebrating, including some close to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent:

Milei expressed his gratitude for the backing:

Curiously, Trump noted that his administration is “sticking with a lot of the countries in South America,” emphasizing their focus in the region. He claimed, “We’re getting a real strong choke hold handle on South America, in a lot of ways.”

Washington’s approach of debt trap diplomacy and overt election interventions has indeed resulted in a temporary success for Argentina with Milei’s governance. However, the Argentine peso has resumed its decline. As was warned before the elections, another devaluation—Milei’s second in just two years—seems likely.

Faced with limited options—support President Milei’s La Libertad Avanza (LLA) or face another sovereign default and a financial crisis—Argentine voters largely chose the former. Javier Milei’s party secured 40.8% of the votes compared to 31.7% for the Peronist opposition, with 35% of eligible voters abstaining.

However, the idea of “free” dollars is a misnomer; Argentines are acutely aware that financial bailouts often come at a significant cost. This reality is particularly pronounced with a U.S. Treasury-led initiative compared to one led by the IMF.

“Free” Market Bailouts

As results came in, proponents of “free” market economics hailed Milei’s victory as evidence that Austrian economics can work wonders, conveniently omitting the two $40 billion bailouts that facilitated this. Nothing epitomizes “free” markets more than a government-arranged bailout from a global superpower.

A notable statement reads:

David Frum’s enthusiastic support for Milei has faced criticism:

There is an inherent ambiguity surrounding how much Trump’s tactics influenced Milei’s electoral success. As highlighted by CELAG’s Alfredo Serrano Manc, Argentina’s right-wing parties typically garner around 40% of the vote, independent of economic conditions.

In historical context, in the 2003 presidential election, 40.8% voted for Carlos Menem, even after his policies had caused a currency crisis, leading to an IMF bailout. The same statistical trend followed with Mauricio Macri in 2019, where 40.2% of voters supported his conservative bloc following a major IMF request.

Following a significant defeat in the Buenos Aires province elections in September, Milei’s legislative midterm victory underscores that he retains a strong electoral base. As reported by Valentina Neto for the Catalan newspaper La Vanguardia:

“Milei’s victory shows that he still has significant support, despite the fact his policies to fight inflation have reduced the purchasing power of the working classes, emptied the order books of small and medium-sized companies, and have ravaged pensioners, who have seen their benefits sharply reduced. But that 40% of votes shows that Milei has a solid base among the upper classes and parts of the middle class — precisely those who have access to the dollar in an economy highly dependent on the U.S. currency.

Cloning Milei

This victory is arguably more crucial for the Trump administration than for Milei himself, according to Neto:

Praised by financial markets that benefit from him, protected by the IMF, which endorses his austerity measures, Milei currently shines as a prominent figure within the realm of global far-right populism. From Giorgia Meloni to Nigel Farage, Viktor Orbán to Isabel Ayuso, all see Milei as a model to replicate elsewhere, regardless of his professed libertarian principles.

This reflects on a key aspect we raised previously—Milei’s seeming success must serve as an example to be emulated across Latin America:

Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, an Argentine foreign relations expert, notes that Trump’s “unprecedented” decision to bail out Argentina is driven more by geopolitical interests than economic concerns:

…

A year from now, South America could align closely with the politics of the United States. We have upcoming elections in Chile, which might be won by right-wing populist José Antonio Kast, in Peru and Colombia, where right-leaning candidates could succeed, and even Jair Bolsonaro’s family in Brazil.

The first shift is likely to occur in Chile, where the conservative free-market candidate, José Antonio Kast, is poised to win the upcoming elections. Kast shares political ideologies with Milei and the far-right Vox party in Spain. Reports reveal troubling ties between his family and the Nazi Party.

Simultaneously, Bolivia is experiencing a right-leaning coalition government for the first time in two decades, headed by President-elect Rodrigo Paz, who comes from a political lineage that is deeply intertwined with Bolivia’s history.

A Bailout Beckons in Bolivia?

Following the elections, Paz is keen to strengthen ties with the U.S. and has pledged support for Venezuelan regime-change leader, Corina Machado. His initial act will be to visit Washington to negotiate urgently needed economic support.

Next week we will travel to Washington to engage with multilateral institutions like the World Bank, with which we have been in intense negotiations.

Despite the IMF’s tarnished reputation in Bolivia, analysts predict that seeking its assistance is not a question of “if,” but “when.” An IMF official has already communicated with Paz before the elections regarding necessary restructuring.

This will undoubtedly place Bolivia’s resources, including vast lithium reserves, under U.S. control—complete with the usual structural adjustments.

Despite his vocal critiques of the IMF, senior Trump officials acknowledge its role as the world’s premier lender of last resort, which remains crucial for economic control. Trump’s administration aims to expand America’s influence within these institutions.

As we reported previously, Washington’s focus on using the IMF is not just rooted in economic factors, but stands as a strategic maneuver to secure its interests in Latin America:

The irony is that Trump’s trade war undermines international trade precisely when countries require the IMF’s support the most.

Moreover, the Trump administration conditioned the Treasury-led bailout on Argentina reducing Chinese influence over its resources:

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently engaged in discussions with Argentina’s economic minister about curbing China’s access to essential minerals, as well as granting the U.S. greater access to Argentine uranium supplies.

China remains Argentina’s second-largest trading partner, significantly influencing its agricultural exports.

Bolivia’s recent admissions into the BRICS alliance further diversify its geopolitical relationships. Still, how long Paz will maintain his stance post-Washington is uncertain.

From “Narco Terrorists” to “Terrorist Protesters”

Another nation strengthening its ties to the U.S. is Ecuador. President Daniel Noboa has mobilized police and military forces against indigenous groups protesting subsidy removals on diesel, which led to dramatic price increases.

The Noboa government risks deeper repression, labeling protesters as “terrorists,” while also freezing the bank accounts of various social groups and leaders. This backdrop leads Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau to announce that U.S.-Ecuador relations are at their peak in decades.

The Noboa administration proposes the establishment of U.S. military bases in prominent locations across Ecuador—including vulnerable ecosystems like the Galapagos—after previously permitting U.S. control over naval operations in those areas.

Even with constitutional prohibitions against foreign military bases, Noboa is poised to present a referendum in November to change this.

Traditionally, such moves would trigger international outcry, however, the response has been muted, reflecting a broader acceptance of U.S. influence.

While the justification centers on combating drug trafficking and illegal activities, Noboa’s own company has faced allegations of cocaine trafficking.

False Flag Accusations

The increasing U.S. control over Latin America is driven by deeper motivations than drugs. Rather, military actions in various seas, combined with pressures against Venezuela and Colombia, reveal a strategy aimed at countering China’s influence and regaining access to vital resources.

Simply put, this is about asserting military power. The U.S. is intensifying its military presence in the Caribbean, boasting naval maneuvers intended to warn against adversaries like Venezuela:

As U.S. Military vessels engage in training exercises alongside Trinidad and Tobago’s defence forces, speculation arises regarding potential conflict with Venezuela. Venezuelan officials have suggested that the U.S. is planning false flag operations to justify increased military action.

Unverified reports have surfaced about Wagner mercenaries allegedly providing support to Venezuela’s operations. This domestic support could be crucial as tensions escalate.

As the Trump administration increases sanctions against Colombia, this animosity is rekindling historical ties between Venezuela and Colombia. President Gustavo Petro, facing accusations of drug cartel affiliations, is suspected of potentially uniting these country’s restored relationships.

Mainstream media has amplified tensions in Venezuela, building narratives that align with aggressive U.S. claims for intervention. Recent reports recall the misleading selling points for previous military actions in the Middle East:

Senator Lindsey Graham asserts that the U.S. has the legal standing to invade nations that threaten its interests, referencing historical precedents as justification.

As in previous conflicts, the rhetoric surrounding current tensions misrepresents the core reasons behind potential military actions. Just like before, the drive for control over resources, rather than eradication of drug cartels, rises to the surface:

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

Watch for These 8 Ag Greenwashing Terms at COP30

View Older Posts

Exploring Money and Power in Trump’s Political Landscape