The political and economic drama unfolding between Argentina and the United States has taken a new and controversial turn, as President Donald Trump’s administration announced plans to double a bailout for Argentina to a staggering $40 billion. The move, which arrives just days before Argentina’s pivotal October 26, 2025 midterm elections, has ignited fierce debate on both sides of the equator, with accusations of foreign interference, questions over priorities, and anger from American farmers and politicians alike.
On February 22, 2025, Argentinian President Javier Milei and President Trump met in Washington, DC, cementing what many have described as an unusually close alliance between the two leaders. According to Common Dreams and The New York Times, Milei—a self-described anarcho-capitalist and radical libertarian—rode to power in November 2023 on a wave of populist frustration, promising to fix Argentina’s ailing economy, tackle rampant inflation, and overhaul the state apparatus. But the realities of governing South America’s second-largest economy have proven far more complicated than campaign slogans suggested.
Since taking office, Milei has slashed government spending, drastically cut social programs, and overseen the devaluation of the Argentine peso. While these moves have managed to rein in inflation—at least temporarily—they have also made housing, healthcare, and education more expensive for ordinary Argentinians. According to Common Dreams, poverty, which stood at over 50% shortly after Milei’s election, has fallen to around 30%. Yet, prices and inflation are once again on the rise, and the peso has lost more than 99% of its value against the US dollar over the past decade. A single dollar now fetches 1,361 pesos, a staggering change from the 18-to-1 exchange rate just ten years ago.
Amid this economic turbulence, the Trump administration stepped in last month with a $20 billion bailout, structured as a private-sector loan intended to help Argentina meet its more than $300 billion in external debt obligations. But as the October elections approached and Milei’s political fortunes appeared increasingly shaky—his unfavorability rating has soared to over 60% in some polls—Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced on October 15 that the US would work to double the bailout to $40 billion. The funds, Bessent clarified, would come from private banks and sovereign wealth funds, a point repeated by The Washington Post to allay concerns that US taxpayers would be footing the bill.
Yet, the strings attached to this lifeline have sparked a diplomatic firestorm. During Milei’s visit to the White House, Trump made clear that continued US support would depend on Milei remaining in power. “If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina,” Trump told reporters. “I think he’s going to win, and if he wins, we’re staying with him, and if he doesn’t win, we’re gone.”
The reaction in Argentina was swift and visceral. Milei’s political opponents condemned what they saw as blatant American interference. Margarita Stolbizer, a prominent lawmaker, wrote on social media, “Trump tells us Argentines that if we don’t vote for Milei, we’ll be punished. The interference is absolute, the libertarian surrender is total. Let’s have confidence in the pride of our people: We are millions who don’t want to be told what we have to do.” According to The New York Times, many Argentines viewed Trump’s comments as economic extortion, and investors responded by dumping the peso in a panicked sell-off. Milei’s government scrambled to reassure the public, with National Security Minister Patricia Bullrich insisting that Trump was “talking about philosophy, not the October election.”
Political analysts, such as Benjamin Gedan of the Stimson Center, noted the risks for Milei in tying his fate so closely to Trump’s. “Trump might have sabotaged his favorite president—by both giving him too much support and too little support,” Gedan observed. The episode has fueled what some call the “anti-Trump bump,” where association with the US president has hurt political allies in Latin America and beyond.
In the United States, the bailout has become a lightning rod for criticism from across the political spectrum. Progressive lawmakers and commentators have questioned why tens of billions are being spent to prop up a foreign government while millions of Americans face rising healthcare costs and economic uncertainty. Senator Bernie Sanders asked pointedly, “Trump wants to DOUBLE Argentina’s bailout to $40 billion to save his political ally. Yet he is doing nothing to prevent 15 million Americans from losing their healthcare and 20 million from seeing a doubling in their premiums. Is this what Trump means by America first?” Senator Elizabeth Warren echoed these concerns, arguing that the bailout diverts funds from American businesses, farmers, and families. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich simply remarked, “So much for ‘America First.’”
Even among Trump’s traditional supporters, the backlash has been fierce. John Bartam, a soybean farmer from Illinois, told The Daily Beast that the bailout enabled Argentina to lower its export tax, allowing China to buy seven million tons of Argentine soybeans at a discount—directly undercutting US farmers. “MAGA now means Make Argentina Great Again,” Bartam quipped. Representative Angie Craig, ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee, called the move “a slap in the face to America’s family farmers who are hurting like crazy right now because of Trump’s trade war.”
Economists remain skeptical that even a $40 billion rescue will address Argentina’s deep-rooted financial woes. Barry Eichengreen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, described the current strategy as “extremely fragile,” noting that Argentina has defaulted on its sovereign debt three times since 2000. “Even if [Argentines] manage to skate through thin ice this time, there are always more bumps in the road,” he cautioned.
For Milei, the US bailout was intended as a political triumph, a testament to his close relationship with Trump and a show of confidence in his economic vision. But the fallout has exposed the perils of relying on foreign support and the volatility of international politics. With the October elections looming, Milei faces the daunting task of convincing both Argentines and his American benefactors to trust his path forward. As Gedan put it, “It was already a hard slog. And this has made it much more challenging.”
With so much at stake for both leaders, the next chapter in the Argentina-US saga promises to be as unpredictable as the markets themselves.
