Argentinian President Javier Milei’s party scored a resounding victory in the country’s legislative elections on Sunday, October 26, 2025, sending ripples through both South American and U.S. political circles. With more than 40 percent of the vote, Milei’s libertarian La Libertad Avanza party secured 64 of 127 seats in the lower chamber and 13 of 24 in the upper chamber, a result that exceeded expectations and fortified his grip on power. According to Bloomberg, the party had been forecast to win just 30 percent of the seats, making the final tally a dramatic overperformance.
For President Donald Trump, who had tied U.S. financial support to Milei’s political fortunes, the outcome was cause for celebration. “I love that question because that was a big win in Argentina,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, as reported by Nexstar Media. “I want to congratulate the victor. And he was a big victor, and he had a lot of help from us. He had a lot of help. I gave him an endorsement, very strong endorsement... People thought it would be hard to win. And not only did he win, he won by a lot. So, Argentina, that was a great thing.”
This electoral triumph was not just a political earthquake—it was an economic one, too. The day after the results, Argentina’s dollar bonds soared, with those due in 2035 jumping more than 13 cents to a record 70.34 cents, according to Bloomberg’s pricing model. The financial markets’ exuberance was a direct response to the U.S. Treasury’s finalized $20 billion currency swap with Argentina, with another $20 billion in financing being arranged through sovereign funds and private banks. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent put it, “the results are a clear example that the Trump Administration policy of Peace through Economic Strength is working.” He added, “We look forward to continued steps toward economic freedom that will attract private sector investment and job creators, bringing prosperity to the Argentine people.”
Trump himself had been explicit about the stakes. The $20 billion bailout, initiated by his administration the previous month to stabilize Argentina’s collapsing currency, was conditional on Milei’s party prevailing at the polls. “If he loses, we’re not going to be generous with Argentina,” Trump said earlier in October, as reported by the BBC. With Milei’s win secured, Trump doubled down on his support, posting on Truth Social to congratulate Milei on his “Landslide Victory” and declare, “Our confidence in him was justified by the People of Argentina.”
Milei responded in kind, thanking Trump on X (formerly Twitter) for “trusting the Argentine people” and calling him “a great friend of the Argentine Republic.” He added, “Our Nations should never have stopped being allies. Our peoples want to live in freedom. Count on me to fight for Western civilization, which has succeeded in lifting more than 90% of the world’s population out of poverty. MAGA,” punctuating his message with emojis of the Argentine and American flags shaking hands.
The U.S. administration’s deep involvement in Argentina’s political and economic fate has sparked heated debate at home. Critics argue the bailout was a form of political coercion, designed to prop up a friendly regime rather than address systemic economic issues. Matt Stoller, a researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, was blunt: “It turns out that Argentine voters would prefer Trump give them dollars for free than have another financial crisis,” he wrote on X. Stoller pointed out that Milei’s party had lost the Buenos Aires provincial elections by 14 percent just six weeks earlier, only to win it after the bailout was announced. “The reason for a massive swing to Milei in six weeks was Trump’s offer of free dollars vs. the prospect of economic collapse. Nothing to do with free markets. A blatant lie.”
This narrative stands in sharp contrast to the Wall Street Journal’s analysis, which attributed Milei’s win to a popular embrace of free-market reforms. But for many Argentinians, the specter of another devastating financial crisis—and the lure of immediate U.S. dollars—seemed to outweigh ideological concerns. As BBC reported, Milei’s victory allows him to push through his radical right-wing austerity agenda, which had previously been kept in check by opposition parties overturning his vetoes on spending for universities, people with disabilities, and children’s healthcare.
Back in the United States, Trump’s decision to funnel $40 billion to Argentina while cutting domestic food aid has drawn sharp rebukes from progressive voices. Common Dreams, in a message from co-founder Craig Brown, highlighted the president’s willingness to “find $40 billion to bail out Argentina while cutting off food aid in the U.S.” The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is set to go unfunded due to the government shutdown, leaving millions of Americans in limbo. The juxtaposition of foreign largesse and domestic austerity has become a rallying point for critics who see the administration’s priorities as skewed.
Nowhere is this tension felt more acutely than in Iowa, where Trump’s economic policies have produced a cascade of challenges for farmers and manufacturers. As reported by The New York Times, Iowa’s gross domestic product contracted at a 1.2 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2025. The state’s manufacturing sector, which accounts for 17 percent of its economic output, has been battered by tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other inputs. The loss of China’s soybean market—worth $12.6 billion last year—due to the ongoing trade war has hit Iowa’s farmers hard. “We’ve got uncertainties beyond compare,” said Kirk Leeds, chief executive of the Iowa Soybean Association.
For many in Iowa, Trump’s bailout of Argentina stings all the more because China immediately moved to secure Argentine soybeans to fill the gap left by its boycott of U.S. crops. “Who are you subsidizing, our competitors or us?” asked Larry Ory, a farmer in Earlham, Iowa. The economic pain has rippled through the state, affecting everyone from truckers and agronomists to local restaurant owners. “Everywhere you turn, people are asking, ‘How are you going to make it?’” said Summer Ory, who works on her family’s farm.
The administration’s immigration and energy policies have further complicated matters. The stripping of legal status from foreign-born workers has contributed to layoffs in Iowa’s meatpacking plants, while the president’s opposition to renewable energy threatens the wind industry that supplies more than half of the state’s electricity. “This is as challenging as I’ve seen it,” Leeds remarked.
Despite these headwinds, some Iowans remain loyal to Trump, hoping for a turnaround or a new trade deal with China. But the upcoming 2026 midterm elections could be a referendum on the president’s economic stewardship. As Josh Turek, a Democratic state house member running for Senate, put it, “People are hurting everywhere in Iowa, and they’re looking for something different.”
As Argentina celebrates its new political landscape and the U.S. administration touts its influence abroad, the domestic fallout from these international maneuvers continues to shape the American heartland. The intertwined destinies of two nations—one seeking stability, the other grappling with the consequences—offer a stark reminder of how global politics and local lives are never as far apart as they might seem.
