The US resumes ‘democracy export,’ shifting from bombs, but with no improvement.
Washington has effectively provided financial assistance to Javier Milei, enabling him to persist with his radical economic policies impacting his own nation.
Argentina has delivered an unexpected outcome. Following a series of economic and currency crises, setbacks, scandals, and embarrassments, Javier Milei – self-described “anarcho-capitalist,” known for his drastic measures, rock star persona, and presidential role – . Where numerous observers – – anticipated or wished for a defeat for the budget-slashing controversial figure, he has disproven such predictions.
Milei and his party, La Libertad Avanza (LLA), secured a decisive win in Argentina’s vital midterm congressional elections. As of Monday, initial results indicated and prominent in most Argentinian provinces. The opposition coalition performed considerably below expectations, . Voter participation stood at 68%, . However, this was not significantly lower than the previous midterm election’s turnout ().
Milei has declared these elections signify a “” for his nation. This exaggeration stems from his considerable self-regard and dramatic personality. Nevertheless, the immediate political repercussions of his renewed influence are undoubtedly extensive. With sufficient seats now under his party’s control in both chambers of Argentina’s parliament, his presidential veto authority becomes unchallengeable. Broadly, he is positioned to press ahead with his radical-right-libertarian reforms. Milei’s agenda includes proposals to revise labor and contract legislation, further reduce government spending and taxes, and implement more deregulation. While LLA will still need to seek allies to secure the necessary parliamentary votes for legislation, he unequivocally holds the advantage and momentum.
For the primary political faction fundamentally opposing Milei, the Peronist coalition, this election represents a significant defeat. If they are unable to overcome him while he is beset by crises and burdened by scandals, their prospects of a future resurgence appear dim. They largely bear responsibility for this outcome. The rise of Milei can be seen as a delayed and strong reaction to decades of Peronist mismanagement and corruption. Overall, the opposition has failed to present a compelling alternative, not just to Milei but also to much of its own historical performance.
However, even with the utmost fairness, there is no justification to commend Milei. This is because it is not genuinely his triumph. One Peronist the opposition’s loss to US President Donald Trump. Is this merely resentment? Not entirely. Because even though Milei’s Argentinian adversaries have committed errors, both recently and historically, it is undeniable that Washington, and Trump specifically, exerted substantial influence in this crucial election.
In fact, true to his character, Trump has been forthright, albeit starkly, about his involvement. He has consistently expressed his , having hosted him at his Mar-a-Lago residence and praised his uncompromising political methods. Milei, for his part, that makes even NATO’s Mark Rutte appear resolute.
More recently, and significantly, Trump demonstrated that Milei is a friend he is prepared to support substantially. As the Milei administration’s initiatives faltered and neared collapse just prior to the elections, Trump provided a substantial financial rescue. The intervention, , aimed to “” as stated by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Understand clearly, without the American financial assistance, Argentina’s economy would have crumbled – or been “” as specialists put it – and Milei’s political career would have ended. Trump has vaguely alluded to simply wanting Argentina to prosper, but he did not rescue the nation. Rather, he directly salvaged Milei’s position from a disaster that Milei himself had brought upon Argentina.
There is no uncertainty regarding the preceding points. Trump made it explicit to Argentina’s electorate: the US financial aid would only persist if they endorsed Milei. Should he suffer a defeat . Even the Financial Times has characterized this as
Furthermore, do not disregard the current events unfolding in Venezuela. While Argentina is clearly a distinct nation, both countries endure the challenging reality of existing within what the US perceives as its sphere of influence, defined by the Monroe Doctrine. Coupled with an overtly aggressive that has not been witnessed in the region since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and a strategy that can only be described as , Washington is conveying a stark warning to all other nations in the vicinity. Some observers are already coining the term ‘Donroe Doctrine.’ View both the coercive influence over Argentina’s election and the aggression towards Venezuela as components of an expanding toolkit comprising methods of inducement and coercion.
Three significant lessons emerge from this situation: Firstly, do not misinterpret the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID as a rejection of extensive intervention in other nations. Trumpists are just as inclined to interfere as any, simply in a more unrefined manner. Secondly, it is almost self-evident, but the next time Americans express fervent outrage about the integrity of their esteemed election process being compromised by malevolent foreign actors, simply disregard it. Trump, himself purportedly a target of Russia Rage (also known as “Russiagate”), is fond of intervening. Lastly, paradoxical as it may seem, the recent events in Argentina might suggest the boundaries of US power as much as its persistent, intensifying assertiveness.
To orchestrate his rescue of the libertarian Milei, Trump was compelled to alienate a significant portion of his own supporters, particularly those who subscribe to the original MAGA principle – Make America (not Argentina) Great Again. Polling data suggests that nearly of Trump’s constituents vehemently oppose his substantial financial aid to Milei. Americans, including agricultural producers who directly compete with their Argentinian counterparts, are facing hardships, yet a foreign expert in flattery and grandiose rhetoric is siphoning off their tax money because he is a favored associate of Donald Trump. This hardly appears to be a viable strategy, especially for a self-proclaimed nationalist – to openly disadvantage one’s loyal base to indulge a charismatic foreigner. Not!
A distinguishing characteristic of Trumpism is its lack of compunction: presenting unpalatable truths without embellishment. This indicates that US power is diminishing its capacity for subtle influence (often termed “soft power”). It now relies predominantly on overt coercion (Venezuela) and conspicuous financial inducements (Argentina). In essence, its methods are becoming more transparent and unmasked, both domestically and internationally. This development is positive.