President Javier Milei swept into office in Argentina nearly two years ago on a promise to do what no leader before him had dared: radically overhaul his country’s battered economy by embracing free-market reforms, slashing government spending, and even replacing the beleaguered peso with the U.S. dollar. According to reporting from Forbes, Argentina was in dire straits at the time, with runaway inflation and a central bank printing pesos to cover vast deficits. Milei’s bold vision captured the imagination of voters tired of economic instability and political corruption, leading to a stunning upset victory that sent shockwaves through the country’s political establishment.
Once in office, Milei wasted little time. He set about cutting government spending with what critics and supporters alike called a “chainsaw,” dramatically reducing the size of the bureaucracy. The results were, at first, impressive: the budget was brought into balance, inflation dropped sharply, and the Argentine economy seemed to be stirring back to life. For a moment, Milei looked poised to deliver on his most audacious promises.
But the honeymoon didn’t last. As Forbes details, Milei now finds himself mired in crisis. Growth has slowed, inflation is ticking back up, and his influential sister has become embroiled in a corruption scandal that has rocked his administration. Politically, things aren’t faring much better: Milei’s party suffered a bruising defeat in the Buenos Aires province, the country’s most populous region and home to its capital. Riots and demonstrations have erupted, fueled by an opposition eager to capitalize on Milei’s stumbles.
The stakes are high. Next month’s congressional elections could see the opposition win enough seats to roll back Milei’s reforms, threatening the fragile progress his government has made. The uncertainty has already taken a toll: the peso has come under attack, and business investment has stalled as investors wait to see which way the political winds will blow.
In the midst of this turmoil, Milei turned to the United States for help, requesting a $20 billion bailout. As reported by The Daily Beast, the Trump Administration quickly signaled its willingness to assist, eager to support a free-market ally in the region. The prospect of a bailout helped ease some of the pressure on the peso, at least temporarily. But the move has sparked a fierce debate in Washington and among American farmers, who fear the consequences of the deal may hit closer to home than many realize.
Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was photographed at the United Nations General Assembly reading a text message from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who was sharply critical of the bailout. According to The Daily Beast, Rollins wrote, “We bailed out Argentina yesterday (Bessent) and in return, the Argentine’s removed their export tariffs on grains, reducing their price, and sold a bunch of soybeans to China, at a time when we would normally be selling to China. Soy prices dropping further because of it. This gives China more leverage on us.”
Rollins’ message, which was caught on camera, underscores a growing sense of frustration among U.S. farmers. Shortly after the bailout was announced, Argentina suspended its 26 percent export tax on soybeans, paving the way for a flood of sales to China. In just two days, China reportedly imported up to 20 cargoes of Argentine soybeans—a market that, in better times, might have been dominated by U.S. producers.
The timing couldn’t be worse for American farmers. The ongoing trade war with China has already led to steep retaliatory tariffs on U.S. soybeans, effectively shutting American growers out of the world’s largest market. The American Soybean Association didn’t mince words in a statement last week, noting, “The U.S. has made zero sales to China in this new crop marketing year due to 20% retaliatory tariffs imposed by China in response to U.S. tariffs.”
ASA President Caleb Ragland went on to say, “This has allowed other exporters, Brazil and now Argentina, to capture our market at the direct expense of U.S. farmers. The frustration is overwhelming. U.S. soybean prices are falling, harvest is underway, and farmers read headlines not about securing a trade agreement with China, but that the U.S. government is extending $20 billion in economic support to Argentina while that country drops its soybean export taxes to sell 20 shiploads of Argentine soybeans to China in just two days.”
Political leaders have echoed these concerns. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, took to social media to voice the anger of his constituents: “Farmers VERY upset abt Argentina selling soybeans to China right after USA bail out … farmers need markets 2 boost farm economy,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter) on September 25. In a follow-up message, Grassley added, “Why would USA help bail out Argentina while they take American soybean producers’ biggest market??? We shld use leverage at every turn to help hurting farm economy Family farmers shld be top of mind in negotiations by representatives of USA.”
The backlash highlights the tricky balancing act facing the Trump Administration. On the one hand, supporting Milei’s government is seen by some as vital to maintaining a free-market foothold in Latin America—especially at a time when left-wing, authoritarian governments are gaining ground in the region. As Forbes argues, Milei’s economic success could serve as a model that “would discredit the far-left authoritarian trend in Latin America and much of the rest of the world.” On the other hand, the immediate impact on American farmers—already reeling from the trade war—has left many questioning whether the bailout serves U.S. interests.
Critics of Milei’s approach argue that his biggest mistake was not following through on his promise to dollarize Argentina’s economy. According to Forbes, countries like El Salvador and Ecuador successfully adopted the U.S. dollar, stabilizing their economies even under left-leaning governments. The article contends that “a government can get things right on spending, regulation and taxes, but if it doesn’t achieve a stable currency, its economy will suffer.” Milei, it is argued, listened to the International Monetary Fund’s advice to keep the peso—a decision now seen by some as a profound misstep.
What’s the way forward for Argentina? Some experts suggest that Milei should “junk the peso,” have the central bank buy pesos to reduce the money supply, and introduce a low-rate flat tax—measures that helped countries like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Bulgaria tame inflation in the 1990s. There’s also a call for the permanent removal of Argentina’s export taxes, and for the U.S. to cut tariffs and negotiate a free-trade agreement with Argentina.
But for now, the immediate future is clouded by uncertainty. With congressional elections looming and political opposition on the rise, Milei’s reforms hang in the balance. The outcome will not only determine the fate of his government, but could also reshape U.S. relations with Latin America and the global agricultural market.
As the world watches, the stakes for Argentina—and for American farmers—couldn’t be higher. The next few weeks will reveal whether Milei’s radical experiment can survive its toughest test yet, or if the forces of political and economic gravity will pull the country back toward the familiar cycle of crisis and recovery.