Wall Street won’t underwrite Argentina without Washington backing the play — and who could blame them? Argentina is a very poor bet. Asking whether we should be bailing it out is not only fair, it’s essential. Count me among those voting no.
According to the Associated Press, the Trump administration plans to provide roughly $40 billion in financial support to Argentina — half through a U.S. Treasury–backed currency swap and half from private investors — to stabilize the country’s collapsing economy and support President Javier Milei’s free-market reforms. Washington views Milei, a close Trump ally, as a key partner in promoting deregulation and fiscal discipline across Latin America.
Fair enough and good on Milei. Yes, America favors market-based democracies. Yes, it makes sense to encourage growth where freedom takes root. But this move is far from America First, and Trump campaigned on that.
A consortium of major U.S. banks — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup — is reportedly trying to assemble a $20 billion loan for Argentina but wants collateral or U.S. Treasury guarantees to guard against default. And rightly so. It’s called business, not “friends and favors.”
Meanwhile, the Treasury is arranging a separate $20 billion currency swap to bolster Argentina’s reserves and stabilize the peso — a move that exposes U.S. taxpayers if the peso continues to fall.
Bad for U.S banks and more risk for the treasury. Not good.
And all this comes as Argentina resumes selling soybeans to China — sales made possible only after Argentina suspended export taxes, a decision many believe couldn’t have happened without U.S. financial intervention. Follow that with talk the U.S. may buy Argentine beef to increase domestic supply and push down prices domestically.
It sounds good in theory. In practice, it stinks.
Bailing out Argentina to the tune of $40 billion — effectively putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook — adds yet another liability to a federal balance sheet already groaning under nearly $40 trillion in debt. Easy as that number is for the administration to forget, it remains and it’s real. That’s not fiscally conservative, and it’s certainly not “America First.”
Under normal circumstances, importing cheaper Argentine beef might make economic sense, but not when our own money is weaponized against us, especially when America’s own cattle producers are enduring drought and other challenges that will self-correct with time and nature.
Had Argentina not effectively sold soybeans to China with American money when American farmers have been cutout of China’s market in a trade war, pushback might have been somewhat tempered. Not the case.
When is enough, enough?
It’s time to focus on our own debt, our own ongoing shutdown, and our own domestic and more-pressing global challenges — starting with China — before Argentina. The best defense of free-market democracy isn’t to bail out failed economies abroad. It’s to keep our own strong, solvent, and free.
The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Closer to home, if we have $40 billion to dole out – we don’t – dole some of it out to West Virginians who have seen their economy challenged in part by strenuous environmental regulations courtesy of an over-zealous EPA, or who have met the plight of flooding and the aftermath that comes with it. Finally deploy broadband instead of delay after delay or offset the societal and economic costs of the opioid epidemic.
In short, help us help ourselves before you help Argentina, Mr. President. Don’t West Virginians matter as much?