Trump’s Foreign Policy in Latin America Risks US Influence

President Donald Trump’s approach to Latin America has raised concerns about the long-term influence of the United States in the region. Since his presidential campaign began on June 16, 2015, analysts have debated the coherence of his foreign policy. One area where his strategy appears more defined is in the Western Hemisphere, where his tactics blend elements of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary. The primary objective remains consistent with historical aims: to maintain US dominance by preventing external powers from interfering in its sphere of influence.

What sets Trump apart from previous administrations is his overt focus on power rather than the promotion of democracy or stability. Countries with troubling human rights records or questionable democratic practices are deemed less important than their alignment with Washington on significant geopolitical issues. This perspective positions the United States as a “primacist,” believing it has the right to exert its influence aggressively to remain dominant.

With adversaries like Cuba and Venezuela facing sanctions and military threats, and allies like Canada experiencing pressure, Trump’s strategy rewards compliance with visits to the Oval Office and financial support while punishing dissent. The long-term implications of this approach could alienate crucial regional partners vital for maintaining a balanced power structure.

Consequences of Heavy-Handed Tactics

The Trump administration’s tactics have immediate repercussions, particularly concerning two key issues: drug trafficking and migration. The situation in Venezuela exemplifies Trump’s aggressive stance. Nicolás Maduro, who has led the country since 2013, remains defiant against US pressure, supported by his alliances with Russia and Cuba. The US military’s increased presence in the Caribbean, including the deployment of B-1 and B-52 bombers, sends a clear message to Maduro: comply or face military action. Since September 2023, US airstrikes have destroyed at least 20 vessels alleged to be involved in drug trafficking, resulting in over 80 fatalities.

In Colombia, the situation is similarly tense. Under President Gustavo Petro, Colombia faces US coercion regarding its drug policies. The Trump administration has designated Colombia as a major illicit drug-producing country, imposing sanctions on Petro for allegedly allowing drug cartels to flourish. This pressure marks a significant shift for a nation that has historically been a close ally.

Despite these aggressive tactics, there have been some successes for the Trump administration. Following threats to reclaim the Panama Canal, Panama has reassessed its ties with China and withdrawn from the Belt and Road Initiative. Additionally, Mexico has intensified its efforts against drug cartels, partly due to Trump’s threatened tariffs on imports.

Long-Term Risks and the Rise of Alternatives

Nevertheless, the short-term achievements do not guarantee enduring benefits for the United States. As Trump’s administration continues its primacist strategy, countries like Brazil and Colombia are growing increasingly resistant to US mandates. The imposition of a 50 percent tariff on Brazil as punishment for prosecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro has only solidified resistance. Brazilian President Lula de Silva has leveraged this situation to enhance his domestic standing, reinforcing his country’s strategy of fostering relationships with major global powers, including China.

Colombia has also begun to push back. On November 11, 2023, the Colombian government announced that it would suspend all intelligence-sharing on counter-narcotics until the US halts its unilateral strikes. Although the defense minister later softened this position, the initial declaration indicates a significant strain in a historically close alliance.

The United Kingdom, a key US intelligence partner, has also restricted the sharing of drug trafficking intelligence due to concerns over potential violations of international law. The cumulative effect of these decisions is a decrease in drug interdictions and prosecutions.

In this evolving landscape, China is poised to benefit from US missteps. By capitalizing on Trump’s erratic policies, Beijing positions itself as a more reliable partner for Latin American countries, many of which are already aligned with China as their top trading partner. The perception of US heavy-handedness may compel nations such as Brazil, Mexico, and Peru to seek closer ties with China, not out of ideological alignment but as a strategic necessity to mitigate reliance on the US.

Ultimately, the lesson from Trump’s foreign policy approach is clear: aggressive primacy could undermine US interests. Nations will resist coercion and may turn to alternative partners when faced with pressure from the north. A shift towards diplomacy and mutually beneficial agreements may yield better long-term results for the United States. Engaging with regional leaders through dialogue and investment could foster cooperation rather than resentment, proving that a more nuanced approach is essential for sustaining influence in Latin America.