It’s not every day that Argentine political history gets dragged into the heart of a U.S. policy debate, but this week, the ghost of Eva Perón—by way of an AI-generated musical poster—found herself at the center of a fiery Washington showdown. The spark? A controversial $40 billion U.S. financial support package for Argentina, led by President Donald Trump and his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and the fierce resistance mounted by Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren.
On October 24, 2025, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took to X (formerly Twitter) to lambast Senator Warren, dubbing her an “American Peronist” after she urged major U.S. banks to steer clear of participating in the Argentine bailout. Bessent’s post, which featured a doctored image of Warren as Eva Perón from the musical Evita, was more than just a meme—it was a shot across the bow in a heated policy and political battle that’s now drawing in Wall Street, American cattle ranchers, and everyday taxpayers.
So what’s at stake? The Trump administration’s support package for Argentina, announced in stages throughout the fall, is massive: a $20 billion currency swap with the Central Bank of Argentina and a matching $20 billion private investment fund, totaling at least $40 billion. The package is intended to stabilize Argentina’s economy, which has been teetering on the edge of collapse, and to shore up the government of President Javier Milei, a far-right Trump ally fighting to stave off a critical shortage of international reserves ahead of Argentina’s mid-term elections.
Bessent, defending the deal, called it “mission-critical,” arguing that supporting Argentina is in the U.S. national interest. He and Trump have said the aid is designed to prevent Argentina from becoming another “failed state” like Venezuela and to push back against growing Chinese influence in South America. “We’ve been criticized by a couple of American Peronists like Senator Warren,” Bessent told the press during Milei’s White House visit on October 14. Trump, never one to mince words, chimed in: “She’s a nasty, horrible senator.” The pair even took aim at other Democrats, with Bessent referring to New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani as Warren’s “protégé”—to which Trump quickly added, “I don’t think he’s a Peronist, I think he’s more… Communist.”
But the financial rescue effort has met stiff opposition from both sides of the U.S. political spectrum. Critics in Congress, including many Republicans and Democrats, question why American taxpayers should underwrite a bailout for a country that competes directly with the U.S. in major commodity markets like soybeans and energy. The controversy deepened when, on October 24, Senator Warren sent letters to the CEOs of six major Wall Street banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo—raising concerns about their potential role in the bailout. She also wrote to Santander, seeking details about the bank’s reported role in purchasing Argentine pesos on behalf of the U.S. government.
Warren’s letters pulled no punches. “It would raise serious safety and soundness concerns if your bank chooses to participate in this $20 billion investment vehicle, given the shaky creditworthiness of Argentina and its apparent lack of valuable collateral against which to secure a loan,” she wrote, according to her office. She pressed the banks to commit not to use any taxpayer-funded guarantees offered by the Treasury Department, warning, “I assume your bank would not avail itself of a taxpayer-funded guarantee, given broad public concern regarding the apparent Wall Street beneficiaries of the bailout, at a time when Americans are struggling to afford rent, groceries, and health care here at home.”
Warren’s public stance didn’t stop at private letters. That same evening, she doubled down on X, tweeting, “The big banks need to reject this deal. Taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for Trump’s political favors.” The senator has demanded answers from the banks by October 31, putting added pressure on Wall Street to clarify their positions.
Bessent’s mocking response—casting Warren as a modern-day Eva Perón—drew attention not just for its theatrical flair but for its invocation of Peronism, a movement historically associated with populist economic policies and support for the working class. The original Evita musical tells the story of Eva Perón, the beloved (and controversial) Argentine first lady who famously addressed crowds from the Casa Rosada’s balcony. Bessent’s post, with its “Don’t Cry for Me Massachusetts” punchline, was a pointed jab at Warren’s Massachusetts roots and her vocal opposition to the deal.
But the drama didn’t end there. As part of its broader support package for Argentina, the Trump administration has also floated a plan to quadruple the U.S. government’s annual purchase of Argentinian beef. The move, ostensibly aimed at offsetting rising beef prices in the U.S., has sparked outrage among American cattle ranchers and farmers. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association was blunt in its response: “Cattlemen and women cannot stand behind President Trump while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef.”
On the October 24 episode of “The Weeknight,” co-hosts Michael Steele, Symone Sanders Townsend, and Alicia Menendez tore into the proposal. Steele questioned the administration’s adherence to its “America first” promise, while Sanders Townsend, herself from Nebraska—a major beef-producing state—highlighted the anxiety among ranchers and farmers. “If you talk to the Nebraska Farm Bureau, if you talk to any of the ranchers and the farmers, they are very concerned about this move from the president,” she said, urging Republican lawmakers to keep up the pressure. Menendez, meanwhile, pointed out that Trump had campaigned on lowering grocery prices but has so far focused on other priorities.
As the days tick down to the banks’ October 31 deadline to respond to Warren’s demands, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Supporters of the bailout, including Trump and Bessent, insist that U.S. intervention is necessary to protect strategic interests and prevent greater instability in the region. Detractors argue that the risks to taxpayers and American industries—especially agriculture—are too great, and that domestic needs should come first.
This high-stakes debate, with its mix of global finance, partisan sparring, and even Broadway references, has become a kind of political theater in its own right. Whether the U.S. banks will heed Warren’s call, and how the Trump administration’s gamble on Argentina will play out, remains to be seen. For now, the only certainty is that both sides are gearing up for an epic showdown—one that could have lasting consequences for U.S. foreign policy, the economy, and the ever-colorful world of American politics.
As the dust settles, Americans from Wall Street to the heartland are left weighing the costs and benefits of a rescue mission that’s as controversial as it is consequential.
