Published 10/25/2025 10:34 | Edited 10/25/2025 10:53
The controversial rescue plan announced by Donald Trump’s government to support Javier Milei’s government in Argentina is not only receiving criticism from South American neighbors. In the United States itself, the proposal has generated a strong reaction among analysts, economists and prestigious press outlets. THE Financial Timesa global reference in economics and finance, published a scathing editorial in which it classifies the operation as “a blatant form of financial imperialism”.
Journalist Gillian Tett, member of the editorial board of FTquestions the viability and intentions of the plan, which provides for a US$20 billion currency swap line and another US$20 billion in private financing, articulated by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. “Will it work? It’s unclear, to say the least,” Tett wrote. “With Milei facing crucial midterm elections and an economy on the brink of recession, reserves are dangerously low, and part of the population is beginning to rebel against radical free-market policies.”
The columnist also highlighted the ironic nickname that the market gave to the package — MADA (“Make Argentina Default Again”[Faça a Argentina Dar Calote Novamente]), a direct parody of the Trumpist slogan MAGA (“Make America Great Again”[Faça a América Grande Novamente]) —, highlighting skepticism regarding the success of the initiative.
“Trump is using the dollar as a diplomatic weapon”
O Financial Times identified at least three main risks in the plan. The first would be the domestic political cost in the USA, as part of the resources would come from public funds and may face resistance in Congress, including among Republicans. The second, more serious, is the geopolitical use of the American currency.
“Trump is using the dollar as a diplomatic weapon,” Tett wrote. “This is pure financial imperialism — and it could make other countries even more wary of depending on American aid or dollar swaps, given the political price that could entail.”
The third risk, according to the editorial, is of an economic nature: the swap was designed to avoid the collapse of the Argentine peso, but “most indicators suggest that the currency is overvalued, perhaps by 20%, and therefore would need to be devalued”. In this scenario, the FT warns that Milei and Bessent “are trying to defy financial gravity”.
If the plan fails, the text continues, “the US Treasury’s image of omnipotence will be undermined — and investors may wonder whether Washington still has the capacity to defy other forces of financial gravity, such as the weight of the US’ own debt.”
Politician: Trump’s “billion dollar and chaotic bet” in South America
In the same critical line, the magazine Politico — one of the most influential US political publications — called the aid package “the latest window into Trump’s chaotic, loyalty-based approach to geopolitics.”
In a report signed by Michael Stratford and Victoria Guida, the Politico states that “the credibility of the United States in the region is at stake”, as the White House would be “betting billions of dollars and its influence on rescuing a perpetually bankrupt country, without presenting a clear exit strategy”.
The text also highlights that the aid package comes on the eve of the mid-term elections in Argentina, crucial for Milei’s governability and seen as a test for his radical austerity program, known as the “chainsaw”.
“A setback for Milei could severely harm the US effort to reassert its economic influence in Latin America and contain China’s advance,” notes the magazine.
Economists question: “No one voluntarily risks money in Argentina”
Distrust is not limited to the political field. Renowned economists also doubt the success of the initiative. Sergi Lanau, director of global emerging markets strategy at Oxford Economics, was categorical: “No private investor would voluntarily risk significant amounts of money in Argentina.”
Lanau believes that, even with diplomatic incentives from the White House, the total volume of contributions will hardly come close to the promised US$20 billion. “Something could happen because the banks don’t want to break with Washington, but the real value will be much lower. There is no way to reach that amount,” he said.
Robin Brooks, former chief strategist at Goldman Sachs and fellow at the Brookings Institution, also warned of the risks of failure: “A bailout program only works if the markets believe in it — and clearly they don’t.”
Political bet with high cost
For Trump, the plan is also a political move. He has presented assistance to Milei as a gesture of support for an ideological ally who shares his ultraliberal and anti-system agenda. “If he loses, we will not be generous with Argentina,” said the Republican last week.
The speech was partially softened by Bessent, who conditioned support on the “continuity of good policies” of the Argentine government, and not on the person of Milei. Still, analysts see the package as a rare case of external financial intervention with explicit electoral motivations — both in Buenos Aires and in Washington.
A rescue that could be expensive for both sides
While the Argentine government tries to contain the devaluation of the peso and faces growing social resistance to austerity measures, the White House is dealing with internal criticism over the use of public resources in a bet considered risky.
If the plan fails, analysts say, Trump will not only face political attrition at home but could also jeopardize the U.S.’s credibility as an economic power in Latin America.
How did you summarize the Financial Times“if Milei and Bessent succeed in defying financial gravity, the American Treasury will appear omnipotent; but if they fail, the rumble will be heard far beyond Buenos Aires.”
With information from Page 12
Source: vermelho.org.br
