In a dramatic week for international finance and politics, the United States Treasury signaled a major intervention in Argentina’s ongoing economic crisis, pledging an unprecedented $20 billion swap line and a suite of additional supports to shore up the embattled South American nation. The announcement came as President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met with Argentine President Javier Milei on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 23, 2025—a moment that underscored the deepening ties between the two right-wing leaders and the high-stakes gamble the U.S. is taking on Argentina’s future.
The move, revealed by Bessent in a series of statements and social media posts on September 24, 2025, sent ripples through global markets. The Argentine peso, which had been battered following Milei’s party’s defeat in the Buenos Aires provincial elections earlier in the month, rebounded—rising 2.4 percent to 1,333.90 per dollar according to AFP, and, as reported by The American Prospect, up 4 percent against the dollar. Argentine government bonds also rallied, with the 2030 issue jumping more than three cents and overall bonds climbing 7 percent.
Bessent’s pledge was comprehensive. Not only did he promise the $20 billion swap line with Argentina’s central bank, but he also committed the U.S. to purchasing Argentina’s dollar-denominated government debt as conditions warrant and delivering immediate standby credit via the Exchange Stabilization Fund. “Argentina has the tools to defeat speculators, including those who seek to destabilize Argentina’s markets for political objectives,” Bessent declared on Fox Business Network, emphasizing that the Treasury was “fully prepared to do what is necessary.”
The timing of the U.S. intervention is no accident. Argentina faces legislative midterm elections on October 26, 2025, with Milei’s party struggling to retain its minority foothold after a poor showing in the Buenos Aires Province local elections on September 7. The market panic that followed—exacerbated by the central bank burning through more than $1 billion in reserves to defend the peso—highlighted the fragility of Milei’s economic program. His administration, which took power in October 2023, has pursued extreme austerity measures in a bid to balance the budget, restore confidence in the peso, and attract foreign investment. But, as The American Prospect reported, these policies have largely backfired: inflation, after an initial dip, has crept back up, foreign investment has been sluggish, and the government is nearly out of hard currency.
Compounding Milei’s woes is a corruption scandal involving his sister, which, along with the austerity drive, has eroded his domestic support. “Milei, an ally of Trump in Latin America, thanked the US leadership for their ‘support and confidence,’” noted AFP, as the embattled president sought to stabilize markets and his political standing ahead of the crucial vote.
The U.S. support, however, is not without controversy. Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to voice domestic criticism, calling the potential use of emergency funds to bolster a foreign government’s markets “deeply troubling.” She questioned the wisdom and legality of deploying the Exchange Stabilization Fund in this context, raising concerns about precedent and accountability.
Yet, for Trump and Bessent, the decision appears as much political as economic. Bessent tied the prospect of substantial U.S. corporate investment in Argentina to a “positive” election outcome for Milei’s party, saying that numerous U.S. companies had indicated their readiness to make “substantial foreign direct investments” in multiple Argentine sectors—if the political winds were favorable. This explicit linkage prompted some observers to accuse the U.S. of meddling in Argentina’s internal politics, using financial muscle to tilt the scales in favor of a like-minded leader.
President Trump himself, speaking at the UN, struck a characteristically brash tone. While pledging U.S. support, he insisted, “I don’t think they need a bailout.” His Treasury Secretary was more explicit, elaborating on the tools at Argentina’s disposal and the U.S. commitment to prevent market “disequilibrium” from derailing Milei’s reforms. “It’s very hard to believe that it is different this time, but I believe with President Milei it is,” Bessent told Fox Business Network, referencing Argentina’s long history of economic mismanagement.
The International Monetary Fund, which has already extended $44 billion in credits to Argentina—more than a third of its total resources—welcomed the U.S. intervention. IMF head Kristalina Georgieva met with Milei in New York, emphasizing the importance of sticking to economic reforms and suggesting that the U.S. support “strengthens the program” between the IMF and Argentina. Still, the country faces a daunting $4.8 billion repayment to the IMF next year, and analysts like Martin Muehleisen, former IMF strategy chief, warned, “Argentina still needs to deliver on difficult underlying reforms for which there is currently no indication because of a lack of bipartisan support.”
Argentina’s economic woes are not new. The country has lurched from crisis to crisis for decades, alternating between left-populist governments that run deficits and spur inflation, and right-wing administrations that impose austerity, often with painful social consequences. Milei, often described as a “whacked-out variant” on this cycle by The American Prospect, has doubled down on the libertarian playbook—slashing social spending and aiming to attract foreign capital, only to see popular support and market confidence erode.
The contrast with neighboring Brazil is stark. Under President Lula, Brazil’s economy has notched over 3 percent annual GDP growth for the past three years, kept inflation below 5 percent, and maintained a trade surplus. Yet, as The American Prospect pointed out, Brazil has been hit with a 50 percent punitive tariff by the Trump administration—ostensibly for political reasons—while Argentina is in line for tens of billions in U.S. aid.
For now, Argentina’s markets have responded positively to the U.S. pledge. But the underlying questions remain: Can external support compensate for the deep structural and political challenges facing the country? Will U.S. intervention help stabilize Argentina, or simply postpone another reckoning? As the October elections approach, the world will be watching—wondering whether this time, as Bessent insists, really is different.
What’s clear is that the U.S. has thrown its considerable weight behind President Milei, betting that a combination of financial firepower and political alignment can rescue Argentina from the brink. Whether that gamble pays off, or simply sets the stage for the next chapter in the country’s long saga of boom and bust, remains to be seen.