At a press conference after his meeting with Zelensky, a reporter asked Trump how he plans to proceed with relations with Venezuela, since Maduro “has given everything.” President Trump’s answer was, “Yes, he gave everything. You know why? Because he doesn’t want to do anything with the United States.”
Meanwhile, the United States has provided Argentina’s Mirei with a $20 billion loan and is considering providing an additional $20 billion. Moreover, the US is touting its purchase of Argentine government bonds. It is highly doubtful that Argentina will actually be able to stabilize with this bailout or pay back the money, and it would be naive to believe that Bessent and his team think otherwise. So why is this so big?
The simple answer is that the United States is trying to follow the example of Argentina and Venezuela to the rest of the region. The United States appears to be pursuing a retaliatory policy toward Latin America as part of its efforts to restore its “sphere of influence,” and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chief of Staff Stephen Miller appear to be behind it.
The pressure campaign against Maduro is at the center of Trump administration officials’ “Venn diagram of interests,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, Scott Bessent is on the front lines of saving Argentina. Paul Krugman claims he’s doing it to save his investor friends, and while this may be true, broader regional policies are emerging.
James Bosworth’s analysis, which I have always respected, although it tends to be too Western-biased, has created a parody map that has some truth to it. That means the Trump administration is forcing every government in the region to take sides.
You are either for us or against us. Or, more precisely, you will follow US interests, or the US will make you do so. When surveying this region, a clear pattern emerges. With the advent of the Trump administration, Latin America is changing its politics and, if necessary, its politicians.
Mexico has negotiated concessions to President Trump, particularly on reducing immigration and stepping up efforts against drug trafficking. It was also acknowledged by the increase in tariffs on imports from China, which is perhaps the biggest concern of the United States. Mr. Sheinbaum has been careful not to antagonize Mr. Trump and has maintained that his administration is working with him. That’s why when Trump declared cartels to be terrorist organizations, I wrote that cartels should not be used against Mexico.
With the exception of Nicaragua, the rest of Central America largely falls under the US plan, although President Trump has not paid much attention to it, although he has threatened to impose new sanctions in the form of tariffs for “human rights violations”. El Salvador and Panama deserve special mention. Bukele is a favorite of Trump. He is being given preferential treatment because he serves President Trump’s needs. Meanwhile, Panama, threatened with invasion, was forced to force China out of its canal ports and give preferential treatment to U.S. warships.
The Caribbean Sea is currently dominated by a US military presence and illegal attacks on ships suspected of carrying drugs without any evidence. However, only about 10% of maritime drug trafficking takes place through the Caribbean, and 80% takes place through the Pacific Ocean. If Trump really wanted to stop it, he would be looking on the other side of the water. Of course, the aim was not only that, but also to show “strength” and put pressure on Venezuela, and now Colombia.
Beyond these two countries, and I’ll come back to them in a moment, Marco Rubio is trying to use all his influence over Cuba to reinstate it as a state sponsor of terrorism. He has also imposed additional sanctions, blocking aid from other countries such as Russia and China. Electricity shortages, which are causing significant stress to the population, may be understood as an effect of that pressure. The United States is also taking steps in Haiti, and the President of the Dominican Republic is a close ally.
Ecuador’s President Noboa, elected in February, is already planning a referendum to amend the country’s constitution to allow foreign military bases, or U.S. military bases, in the country. He was elected amid a severe security crisis that has gripped the country over the past seven years. Ecuador suddenly went from being one of the most peaceful countries in Latin America to being one of the most violent, electing a Boucre-style president in the process.
Peru, which just replaced a highly unpopular and unelected president, is currently facing violent protests. Last year, Peru opened a deep-water port developed by Chinese state-owned company Cosco as part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The US was not happy with this. When elections are held early next year, the country will likely elect candidates like Mr. Noboa and Mr. Bukele who promise to fight forcefully against violence.
Chile will then hold elections in November 2026, which will likely result in a right-wing candidate as president and move the country away from the left-wing current president, Gabriel Boric. Bolivia has just elected a new president, Rodrigo Paz, who has promised “capitalism for all.” The day after the election, he promised to restore relations with the United States and pledged support for Venezuela’s regime-change leader Corina Machado.
What this brief survey reveals is that Latin America is moving away from the “pink tide” that swept through the region at the end of last century and the beginning of this century, and toward an “orange (Trump) tide.” Now, of course, coincidence doesn’t necessarily mean causation, but how this correlates with the United States’ move toward a more authoritarian government, the pronounced end of hegemony, and the resurgence of the concept of spheres of influence is definitely something to ponder. Especially given the fact that the CIA has historically and continues to be very busy on the continent.
The three countries most strongly resisting US interference in their internal affairs are Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela. Brazil has been embroiled in a standoff with the United States since at least August 2024, when a Brazilian judge banned X because Musk did not want to comply with the country’s disinformation regulations. The allegations were that X had restored accounts related to an alleged 2022-2023 coup plot involving former President Jair Bolsonaro.
When Trump became president for the second time, he slammed the Brazilian government’s trial and conviction of Bolsonaro, a former ally who had tried to pressure Lula through tariffs to free him. Mr. Lula did not back down and defended the actions of the judiciary that led to the current tensions. They are said to have hugged UNGA, but I suspect Lula was trying to emulate Sheinbaum’s approach rather than a true closeness. President Trump is also not happy that Brazil is the founder of BRICS and that Lula has openly advocated de-dollarization. But more importantly, Brazil is strengthening its economic ties with China.
As in Brazil, Mr. Trump has criticized Colombia’s proceedings since taking power against former President Álvaro Uribe, who is accused of bribery and witness tampering. The high court reversed the ruling, and Rubio expressed satisfaction with the ruling. Uribe served as president for eight years, coinciding with the implementation of the United States’ Plan Colombia.
Since the 2000 Plan Colombia, the country has been the United States’ largest recipient of aid and its closest ally in the region. However, these relations changed completely with the arrival of Gustavo Petro, the first left-wing president and former guerrilla leader who declared himself a socialist. Mr. Petro has been highly critical of U.S. policies in the region, particularly in combating drug trafficking, which has killed more than 1 million people. His proposals for combating drugs include providing economic alternatives to the poor, which clash with the U.S. model. He also positioned Colombia as part of the Belt and Road Initiative and strengthened cooperation with China.
Petro has also been highly critical of the US deployment to the Caribbean, saying attacks on ships are illegal and extrajudicial killings are crimes against humanity. He has openly stated that the United States intends regime change in Venezuela and wants Venezuela’s natural resources. This has led President Trump to issue serious threats, cut aid funding, threaten sanctions, and accuse Petro of producing drugs. In the case of Venezuela, this is the stage before the CIA is authorized to operate in the country.
Of course, Venezuela is the United States’ primary adversary in the region, but only because the United States has decided to do so. As Chevron’s license shows, President Maduro is eager to trade and sell oil to the United States even amid harsh sanctions. Technically, the United States could access Venezuela’s vast natural resources without launching an attack on the country. But they could not be owned either directly or through American companies. It is the result of Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution, which nationalized all natural resources and established a socialist-style democracy.
These are two things that the United States cannot tolerate: a political system and an economic model that challenge the United States. In doing so, Chávez, and later Maduro, became close collaborators with China, Russia, and Iran. So if the United States wants to show that it considers Latin America its sphere of influence, it is understandable that it would want to use Venezuela as an example against other parts of the region.
In contrast to Venezuela, since taking power nearly two years ago, Argentina’s Mr. Milay has worked to reshape Argentina’s socio-economic model into a neoliberal model and align himself with the United States on nearly every foreign policy issue, including Israel’s war in Gaza. Milley expressed unequivocal support for President Trump’s efforts to reform the international economy and praised Israel as a “bastion of the West.” It is also no coincidence that Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela have been the most vocal opponents of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Scott Bessent said Argentina is an “institutional ally” of the United States, which is why it is receiving aid. But it’s hard to argue in what practical sense that applies. Argentina’s agriculture competes with the United States in a number of areas, most notably soybeans and beef. This led to U.S. farmers becoming dissatisfied with the relief package. Argentina is not a neighboring country and does not have significant mineral resources aside from lithium and some silver. Nor is it an important trading partner.
But perhaps that’s exactly why. The Trump administration appears to be implementing its own reward and retaliation policy. For Argentina, it’s a reward. Even if you are a country that doesn’t have much to offer in terms of trade or resources, if you follow our interests both pragmatically and ideologically, the United States will have your back. For Venezuela, it’s retaliation. If you dare to challenge U.S. dominance and put your own interests above U.S. national interests, the U.S. will try to pull you down, even if you are a resource-rich country. This basic logic appears to explain US policy in Latin America.
