Why Trump is backing Argentina with billions—and why US farmers are angry

President Trump

US President Donald Trump’s decision to offer a $20 billion bailout to Argentina marks a rare move for a Republican administration that has traditionally opposed international rescue packages. The support is aimed at propping up Javier Milei, Argentina’s libertarian president, whose government has been struggling with inflation, debt, and a fragile peso. Trump, who has repeatedly called Milei his “favourite president,” views him as a political ally and is willing to tie US resources to his survival. Yet the decision has triggered a storm of criticism at home, where farmers and lawmakers see it as risky and unfair, the New York Times reported.

Why Argentina needs help

Argentina’s economy has long been plagued by debt crises, defaults, and runaway inflation. Its currency, the peso, has come under severe pressure in recent weeks, forcing the central bank to spend more than $1 billion to defend its value. Milei’s government is already the largest borrower from the International Monetary Fund, with a $20 billion program agreed earlier this year. By stepping in with additional financing, the Trump administration hopes to calm markets and restore confidence. The move comes as Milei’s party faces key legislative elections, adding to the sense that the bailout is as much political as economic.

Blowback from American farmers

The bailout has hit a nerve in rural America. US soybean farmers, already suffering from China’s retaliatory tariffs on American crops, are furious that Washington is extending lifelines to a competitor. China, cut off from US soybeans by Trump’s tariffs, has turned to Brazil and Argentina, where exports are now cheaper. Argentina even lowered its export taxes recently to boost sales to Beijing, further undercutting US producers. Farm groups argue that American taxpayers should not bankroll a country that is eating into their biggest market. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa questioned the wisdom of aiding Argentina while US farmers face declining prices and rising uncertainty.

Domestic criticism from both parties

Beyond agriculture, the bailout has drawn fire from Democrats and Republicans alike. Senator Elizabeth Warren accused Trump of prioritizing a foreign ally over struggling American families, pointing to cuts in healthcare subsidies at home. Others see the move as cronyism, a way for Trump to shore up an ideological partner abroad. Some Republicans, while sympathetic to Milei’s free-market rhetoric, are uneasy about putting US taxpayer money at risk in a country with a history of defaults. The unusual structure of the bailout—reportedly without the strict conditions usually imposed by institutions like the IMF—has heightened concerns about how the funds will be used and whether they can be repaid.

The risks of lending to a serial defaulter

Economists warn that lending to Argentina comes with huge financial risks. The country has defaulted multiple times, leaving creditors with steep losses. Analysts compare Trump’s move to the 1995 bailout of Mexico, but note that Mexico pledged oil exports as collateral and eventually repaid. Argentina lacks that kind of leverage. Some argue the bailout may stabilize markets in the short term but is unlikely to fix Argentina’s deep structural problems. The US, critics say, has no clear exit strategy and could be throwing money into a financial black hole.

Strategic motives behind the bailout

Trump’s administration insists the move is not just about politics. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has pointed to Argentina’s reforms and its reserves of critical resources such as lithium, which are important for US supply chains. By supporting Milei, Washington also hopes to counterbalance China’s growing influence in South America. Still, the bailout reflects a gamble: tying US credibility and taxpayer dollars to the success of a volatile ally whose economic reforms remain untested.

The bottom line

Trump’s $20 billion bailout for Argentina underscores how economics and politics are now deeply intertwined in US foreign policy. For supporters, it is a bold investment in an ideological partner with strategic resources. For critics, it is a dangerous use of taxpayer funds that leaves American farmers behind while bailing out a country notorious for default. Whether the gamble pays off may depend less on Milei’s rhetoric than on whether Argentina can finally stabilize an economy that has defied decades of rescue efforts.