On the morning of October 17, 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent found himself at the center of a political and financial storm, unveiling a bold $20 billion plan to support Argentina’s beleaguered peso. The move, described by The New York Times as a high-stakes gamble, seeks to stabilize the economy of Argentine President Javier Milei—a nation battered by decades of crises and no fewer than nine sovereign defaults. But as the ink dried on the agreement, the reverberations in Washington were immediate and fierce, with the bailout quickly becoming a lightning rod in an already fraught political climate.
The plan itself is structured as a currency swap between the U.S. Treasury and Argentina’s central bank, effectively functioning as a loan. The goal? To slow the peso’s relentless slide and provide a lifeline to a government teetering on the brink. It’s a rare instance of the United States stepping in directly, bypassing the International Monetary Fund—an institution typically called upon for such rescues. This, according to The New York Times, raises both financial and political risks for the U.S., with critics warning that if the peso fails to recover, American taxpayers could be saddled with one of the most expensive foreign bailouts in decades.
Former Treasury officials have not minced words, calling the decision “the riskiest use imaginable of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.” Yet, for the Trump administration, the calculus appears to be as much about geopolitics as economics. President Donald Trump, who hosted Milei at the White House just days before the announcement, praised the Argentine leader’s libertarian policies and openly linked U.S. support to the outcome of Argentina’s upcoming election. “Our approval is somewhat subject to who wins the election. If a socialist wins...you’d feel a lot differently about making an investment,” Trump remarked, as reported by HuffPost. He added, “We will benefit also, but it’s not that big a benefit because it’s not that big a country.”
For Democrats, the timing and substance of the bailout could not have been more provocative. The U.S. government was in the midst of a protracted shutdown, now entering its third week, with hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed and critical services in limbo. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) seized the moment, introducing the “No Argentina Bailout Act” on October 14, 2025—a measure aimed at prohibiting the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization Fund from extending a lifeline to Argentina. “Even while the Trump administration is trying to fire more people and shut down more services, Trump is carefully keeping open the office at the Treasury Department responsible for executing his bailout of Argentina’s financial markets,” Warren declared from the Senate floor. She didn’t stop there, accusing Trump of putting foreign allies ahead of struggling American families: “For Trump, the leader of Argentina is more important than American families struggling with rising costs for health care.”
The Democratic critique didn’t end with Warren. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a pointed statement: “President Trump seems to think it’s more important to offer $20 billion to bail out Argentina than it is to make a bipartisan deal to prevent health insurance premiums from spiking for over 20 million Americans in a matter of days. That’s not America First—it’s President Trump putting his political allies first even as Americans struggle to make ends meet.”
But the backlash extended beyond partisan lines. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), himself a soybean farmer, questioned the wisdom of aiding Argentina after it struck a deal to sell its soybean crops to China—an arrangement that, as HuffPost noted, came on the heels of the U.S. bailout announcement and dealt a blow to American farmers already reeling from Trump’s tariffs. “Why would USA help bail out Argentina while they take American soybean producers’ biggest market???” Grassley wrote on social media. “We shld use leverage at every turn to help hurting farm economy.”
Senator Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) echoed the sentiment, acknowledging the contradiction at the heart of the administration’s policy. “When you’re an America First administration, talking America First all the time, and then give $20 billion to Argentina, who then turns around and sells to your market and undercuts it—the brand gets damaged a little,” Cramer told Punchbowl News, according to HuffPost.
Not all Republicans were critical, however. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) objected to Warren’s proposed legislation, calling the bill “unnecessary” and defending U.S. support for “an important ally in South America.” For Scott and other supporters, the bailout is a strategic investment in regional stability and a chance to counter the influence of China and other rivals in Latin America.
Yet, lurking beneath the surface are questions about who stands to benefit. HuffPost reported that the bailout could deliver a windfall to billionaire hedge fund manager Rob Citrone, who has significant investments in Argentina and a longstanding relationship with Scott Bessent. Critics, including Shaheen, raised concerns about the appearance of favoritism and the potential for wealthy allies to profit at taxpayer expense.
The controversy was further stoked by a candid photograph of Bessent apparently texting with Trump’s Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins about the soybean deal, a moment Warren seized upon in her Senate remarks: “This development is so terrible for American farmers and so embarrassing that the Treasury Secretary was caught looking at frantic texts from President Trump’s Agriculture Secretary complaining that the U.S. is bailing out a country that cozied up to China at the expense of our farmers.”
For President Milei, whose libertarian reforms once drew applause from the global right, the economic freefall has tested both his policies and his alliances. The bailout, timed just ahead of a pivotal election, is widely seen as an effort to shore up his political fortunes. Trump made no secret of the connection, stating that U.S. support would be “subject to who wins the election,” as reported by HuffPost.
As the dust settles, the $20 billion question remains: Will the U.S. gamble pay off, or will it become a costly lesson in the perils of foreign intervention? With passions running high on both sides of the aisle and the fate of two economies hanging in the balance, the world is watching—and waiting—for the next twist in this extraordinary financial drama.
For now, the only certainty is uncertainty, as Washington and Buenos Aires each weigh the risks and rewards of a partnership forged in crisis and controversy.
