As Donald Trump welcomed Argentinian President Javier Milei at the White House, a controversial policy hung over their meeting: The American president and his team recently approved a $20 billion bailout intended to help bolster the South American country’s economy as it confronts a possible crisis.
Asked how this fits into his “America First” vision, the Republican conceded that the bailout wouldn’t “make a big difference” for the United States, despite the fact that American taxpayers were paying for it. Trump went on to say that the money is intended to “help a good financial philosophy,” adding that if Argentinian voters turned against Milei in upcoming elections, the White House would abandon the bailout package and allow the South American country to move closer to a crisis.
Or put another way, the American president made it sound as if he’s using a whole lot of taxpayer dollars to bolster a struggling foreign ally who’s facing an uncertain electoral future.
This wasn’t well received among many in Argentina — locals apparently aren’t altogether comfortable with American interference in their elections — and it probably won’t help in the U.S. that the price tag for the bailout is already climbing. NBC News reported:
The Trump administration is working on an additional $20 billion support package for Argentina. If completed, it would bring the total price tag of a U.S. backstop plan for Buenos Aires to $40 billion. … [Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent] said the United States would arrange funding commitments from banks and sovereign wealth funds to cover the second $20 billion tranche.
Put another way, Bessent envisions a model in which American taxpayers put up $20 billion, in the form of a loan that officials in Buenos Aires are unlikely to repay, and the Trump administration will arrange private financing to provide Argentina with an additional $20 billion.
That’s a dramatic amount of money. In fact, Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico noted via Bluesky, “The cost of holding down ACA premiums for a year is less than this.”
That comment was accurate but also emblematic of a larger point: Democrats are starting to recognize that a controversial and expensive bailout for a foreign country in support of a “philosophy” that Trump apparently likes can be a potent political cudgel.
At a Capitol Hill event on Wednesday afternoon, for example, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “The Trump administration is giving $20 billion to bail out a right-wing wannabe dictator in Argentina, but Republicans are unwilling to spend a dime to provide affordable healthcare to working-class Americans. That’s unacceptable. The American people deserve better. You deserve better.”
The New York Democrat echoed the message soon after at a congressional press conference. Jeffries: "It's perplexing to us that Rs refuse to spend a dime to protect the healthcare of the American people, but somehow the Trump admin found $40b to bail out a right-wing wannabe dictator in Argentina in ways that are also going to continue to hurt our soybean farmers in Iowa & the Midwest" I’m not a political strategist, but it’s hardly unrealistic to think Democrats should be able to get a lot of mileage out of this. Not only have foreign bailouts always been unpopular with the American public — struggling families tend to wonder why there’s no rescue package for them — but Trump has yet to come up with a coherent explanation for why people in his own country should support the White House’s policy. The political vulnerabilities for the president seem obvious. This post updates our related earlier coverage.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
