When President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office last November, many U.S. farmers believed they had a champion in the White House. After all, their votes had played a pivotal role in his electoral victory. But in a twist that’s left much of rural America scratching their heads, the Trump administration’s recent $20 billion bailout didn’t land in the heartland—it went to Argentina, just days before a government shutdown left Washington at a standstill. The move has sparked outrage among farmers, fueled suspicions of political favoritism, and triggered a fresh round of debate over the administration’s priorities.
The story unfolded rapidly. On September 22, 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a sweeping aid package for Argentina, consisting of a currency swap and other forms of support. As reported by CleanTechnica, this $20 billion commitment came at a time when American farmers were struggling under the weight of tariffs, inflation, and a shrinking labor force—many of their undocumented workers had been driven away by administration policies. Hopes for a domestic bailout had been fading, especially after a Republican-led government shutdown made the prospect of federal relief even more remote.
Yet, while U.S. farmers waited in vain, Argentina found itself the unexpected beneficiary of American generosity. The aid package, as Popular Information and Argentine media outlets revealed, was not just an act of international goodwill. It was reportedly influenced by Rob Citrone, a billionaire hedge fund manager and personal friend of Bessent. Citrone’s fund, Discovery Capital, had made significant bets on the Argentine economy, investing heavily in government debt and companies closely tied to the country’s financial health. As the Argentine economy faltered—growth slowed, unemployment spiked, and President Javier Milei’s popularity waned—Citrone’s investments teetered on the brink.
According to reports from Popular Information, after Milei’s party suffered a stinging defeat in the Buenos Aires provincial elections in early September, investors began dumping Argentine assets, exacerbating the crisis. Facing mounting losses, Citrone allegedly pressed Bessent to intervene. Argentine media, including Perfil and CE Noticias Financieras, described how Citrone bypassed lower-level officials and appealed directly to his friend at the Treasury. Ariel Maciel, a political economy editor at Perfil, told Net TV, “Citrone is really the one who intervenes. He basically tells Bessent, ‘Hey, we need to help in Argentina.’” Notably, two weeks before the bailout was announced, Citrone reportedly snapped up additional Argentine bonds at bargain prices, raising eyebrows and suspicions of insider information.
The mechanics of the bailout were clarified in the days that followed. On October 2, Bessent explained on CNBC that the U.S. support would take the form of a $20 billion swap line, not a direct injection of cash. “We’re giving them a swap line, we’re not putting money into Argentina,” Bessent said, attempting to calm volatile markets. The announcement had initially sent Argentine bonds and the peso soaring, but excitement cooled as investors realized the aid was more limited than first believed. According to Grit Capital Group’s Walter Stoeppelwerth, “Risks remain that the administration could overreact in defense of the exchange rate band, even dipping into IMF resources, or that Milei’s polarizing leadership style could erode middle-class support and weaken governability.”
Meanwhile, the impact of the bailout rippled quickly through global agricultural markets. As highlighted in a letter from Democratic members of Congress, Argentina immediately suspended export taxes on soybeans, corn, wheat, and other key commodities following the U.S. announcement. The result? Argentine agricultural goods became significantly more competitive, and within a single week, Chinese buyers reportedly purchased up to 40 cargoes of soybeans from Argentina. For American farmers, who had already been reeling from trade wars and the loss of government support, this was salt in the wound. The letter to President Trump minced no words: “Argentina’s President, Javier Milei, is notably one of your close personal friends and ideological allies and faces a crucial midterm election on October 26. Instead of subsidizing a foreign country to influence a midterm election on behalf of your friend—and further undermining America’s farmers in the process—you should prioritize lowering costs for American families and strengthening the nation’s agricultural competitiveness.”
It wasn’t just Democrats who voiced concern. At the United Nations on October 1, President Trump, standing alongside Milei, told reporters, “We’re going to help them. I don’t think they need a bailout.” He added, “Scott is working with their country so that they can get good debt and all of the things that you need to make Argentina great again.” Yet, the administration’s actions told a different story, as the Treasury and World Bank both accelerated support for Argentina. The World Bank, for its part, announced it would speed up $4 billion in previously planned investments, focusing on mining, energy, and tourism.
Back home, U.S. farmers were left to question their place in the administration’s priorities. Not only had they been denied a bailout, but they also saw support for clean energy initiatives slashed. In August, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins cut wind and solar energy out of two federal loan programs, undermining efforts to help farmers manage energy costs and invest in conservation. President Trump followed up with a $2.5 billion cut targeting the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office, which he accused of “outlandish regulations that drive up costs for American families, like banning gas stoves and incandescent light bulbs.”
For many in rural America, the contrast couldn’t be starker: while Argentina’s farmers reaped the rewards of U.S. largesse, their American counterparts faced higher costs, fewer supports, and tougher global competition. Some are now calling for protest, drawing parallels to the farmer demonstrations seen in France. Others are urging their representatives in Congress to take a stand. Whether these frustrations will translate into political action remains to be seen, but the message from the heartland is clear: they feel left behind.
As the dust settles, the controversy over the Argentina bailout has become a flashpoint in the broader debate about the Trump administration’s economic and foreign policy priorities. With midterm elections looming in both the U.S. and Argentina, and with farmers’ livelihoods hanging in the balance, the stakes have rarely been higher or the divisions more pronounced.
For now, the farmers who helped put President Trump back in office are left to wonder if their loyalty will ever be repaid—or if, as some critics suggest, the administration’s true friends lie elsewhere.
