SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bailout
Dismissing Concerns of US Farmers, Trump Claims Argentina 'Dying' to Justify $40 Billion Bailout
"If you're the President of Argentina, Trump gives you a $20 billion bailout. If you're an American whose health care premiums are about to double? Tough luck."
Oct 20, 2025
President Donald Trump's allegiance to Argentina's right-wing government is appearing to undermine his signature claim—for those who ever believed it—that he always puts "America first" in his policymaking, as critics continue to bash the Republican leader for his outsized support for Argentina's failing economy compared to the suffering of US consumers, farmers, and workers.
Asked by a reporter aboard Air Force One on Sunday whether he was concerned about US farmers who feel a $40 billion bailout he has helped orchestrate for the beleaguered South American nation "is benefiting Argentina more than it is them," Trump was dismissive of the reporter and the question.
"Look, Argentina is fighting for its life, young lady," Trump mansplained to the female reporter. "You don't know anything about it—they're fighting for their life. Nothing's benefiting Argentina. They are fighting for their life. You understand what that means? They have no money. They have no anything. They're fighting so hard to survive."
After slashing billions in foreign aid around the world this year, cuts that experts say are costing real lives in some of the poorest nations on earth, Trump went on to claim that it was his duty to help struggling Argentina, currently governed by his far-right friend and ally, President Javier Milei, who has driven the economy into a tailspin with his chainsaw-inspired austerity.
Q: What do you have to say to farmers who feel that the deal is benefitting Argentina more than it is them?
TRUMP: Look, Argentina is fighting for its life, young lady. You don't know anything about it. You understand what that means? They are dying pic.twitter.com/1DMyaHtcTR
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 20, 2025
"If I can help them survive in a free world," Trump suggested he would do just that for Argentina. "I happen to like the president of Argentina. I think he's trying to do the best he can. But don't make it sound like they are doing great. They are dying, alright? They're dying."
Trump admitted last week during a cabinet meeting that the $40 bailout is aimed at helping what he described as a "good financial philosophy" of Milei, the far-right libertarian who has slashed pension payments for retired workers, trashed regulations, and eviscerated public spending in deference to corporate and capitalist profits.
Writing for Jacobin, Branko Marcetic argued earlier this month that what it boils down to is that Trump will find funds to salvage the failed policies of Milei, but not healthcare or other needs for American workers or their families.
"In other words," wrote Marcetic, "Trump is sending billions of Americans’ dollars to a foreign country to prop up a failing president who has run his country into the ground by following Trump’s own policy preferences. If Milei fails, Trump’s own, very similar austerity program will take a major blow too.
Soybean farmers across the US have been outspoken about how much Trump's tariff policies have harmed them this year, with China—historically the largest importer of US soybeans—shutting them out, even as they scooped up Argentinian soybeans at bargain prices earlier this year after Milei cut his nation's export tax.
Trump has promised soybean farmers a bailout of their own, but that process has stalled amid the ongoing government shutdown, which Republicans in control of Congress have maintained despite furious calls that doing so puts the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans at risk of soaring premium hikes or lost coverage.
Leading the charge for Trump's policy on Argentina—including $20 billion in US taxpayer funds to stabilize the nation's currency as well as creating a separate $20 billion fund of private investments—is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has said supporting Argentina is vital to US interests and will continue.
However, underneath the administration's support for Argentina lurks the presence of high-profile US investors, some of them closely connected to members of the administration, including Bessent allies and Wall Street players who have backed Trump.
Popular Information's Judd Legum has reported extensively on the financial interests benefiting most from the bailout scheme— and it's not US farmers or consumers. As Legum noted last week:
While farmers struggle to survive and the federal government is shut down, Milei is riding high thanks to the cash infusion from the Trump administration. “There will be an avalanche of dollars,” Milei said in a radio interview shortly before traveling to the White House. “We’ll have dollars pouring out of our ears.”
Speaking with The New Yorker's John Cassidy, former IMF chief economist Maurice Obstfeld explained that one "worrisome" dynamic when it comes to the Argentina bailout is that Bessent is repeatedly saying we will be there for the long term and we will do whatever it takes. He is effectively saying to foreign investors, ‘You will be able to get out whole.’”
As $20 billion has quickly morphed into $40 billion in financial backing of the flailing economy led by the slash-and-burn ideology of Milei, Trump said the US government is also considering buying up beef exports in an effort to control the price for US producers.
“We would buy some beef from Argentina,” he told reporters aboard the Sunday flight on Air Force. “If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.”
However, with the government shutdown ongoing and Republicans refusing to budge on Democratic demands that healthcare costs be contained, there's no end in sight for relief when it comes to American families facing massive spikes in monthly premiums or loss of health coverage completely.
As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted last week: "If you're the President of Argentina, Trump gives you a $20 billion bailout. If you're an American whose health care premiums are about to double? Tough luck."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Responds to Milei’s Failed Libertarian Policies With a US Taxpayer Bailout for Argentina
"Milei was already gifted a $42 billion lifeline from the US-controlled IMF and the World Bank," said one economics writer, "but even that was not enough to stabilize Milei's crazy Austrian School experiment."
Sep 23, 2025
In his first meeting with a foreign head of state after being reelected president last year, Donald Trump welcomed Argentina's far-right libertarian President Javier Milei to Mar-a-Lago.
At a lavish gala, Argentina's president slathered his host with compliments, describing Trump's return to office as the "greatest political comeback in history."
Before a crowd of onlookers, Trump would return the favor, telling Milei, "The job you’ve done is incredible. Make Argentina Great Again, you know, MAGA. He’s a MAGA person.”
On Monday, less than a year later, Milei arrived in New York for this week's meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, begging for help as Argentina's economy continues its freefall and reels from nearly two years of his radical economic austerity program.
Milei's fealty to Trump bore fruit. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised that the nation's financial department "stands ready to do what is needed within its mandate to support Argentina."
In what he described as an effort to tame Argentina's runaway inflation, Milei, who has described himself as an "anarcho capitalist," has spent the time since he was elected president in 2023 instituting a brutal regime of what has been referred to as economic "shock therapy."
His agenda has centered on taking a "chainsaw" to government institutions and worker protections: slashing energy and transportation subsidies, halting public infrastructure projects, declaring war on labor unions, freezing wage and pension increases, and firing tens of thousands of government employees.
The result was predictable: By February 2025, the country had begun to rapidly deindustrialize, unemployment was soaring, and more than half of Argentinians lived in poverty.
However, this did not stop Trump from modeling his economic agenda, often explicitly, after Milei's—most notably through the exploits of the chainsaw-brandishing billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which he used to lay waste to the administrative state. Trump, meanwhile, has signed legislation gutting social services like Medicaid and food assistance, busted public unions, and canceled numerous green energy and infrastructure contracts.
The result has likewise been a slump in economic activity, culminating in unemployment numbers critics say the administration has been desperate to bury.
The US president has already intervened once to help soften Argentina's landing. As El País notes:
Thanks to Trump’s political support, the government agreed to a $20 billion bailout with the International Monetary Fund last April—to which the country still owes another $40 billion—and achieved a measure of calm, but it lasted barely three months.
Now, with Milei facing mass street protests against his budget cut proposals, a hostile legislature that routinely vetoes his agenda, and a weakening peso in the face of continued uncertainty, he has turned to the US for another bailout, which the US hopes will help ease the country's economic woes enough to stave off a thrashing for his party in the country's general legislative elections on October 26.
Referring to Argentina as a "systemically important US ally in Latin America," Bessent said that "all options for stabilization are on the table." This, he said, "may include, but [is] not limited to, swap lines, direct currency purchases, and purchases of US dollar-denominated government debt from Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund."
Notably, Bessent continued to praise Milei's "support for fiscal discipline and pro-growth reforms." Despite its catastrophic effects, he described Milei's chainsaw agenda as "necessary to break Argentina’s long history of decline."
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) denounced the bailout as another favor from Trump to one of his political allies.
"First, Trump made us pay higher coffee and beef prices to support a convicted coup-plotter in Brazil," she said, referring to Trump's attempt to use harsh tariffs to pressure the Brazilian government into dropping charges against Jair Bolsonaro, who was ultimately convicted last week of attempting to overthrow the government. "Now, he wants American taxpayers to bail out his friend Milei in Argentina."
(Video: The Geopolitical Economy Report)
But as Benjamin Norton of the Geopolitical Economy Report argues, the motivation goes deeper than simply helping out a friend. It is an effort to save the reputation of "actually existing libertarianism" and the fortunes of US investors who've cast their lot with him.
"Milei was already gifted a $42 billion lifeline from the US-controlled IMF and the World Bank (after Argentina already owed more debt to the IMF than any other country), but even that was not enough to stabilize Milei's crazy Austrian School experiment," Norton said. "The US government is doing this not only to prop up one of its most loyal puppets in Latin America, but also in order to benefit wealthy US investors who hold Argentine stocks and bonds, and US corporations that want Argentina's lithium."
With Trump having modeled his oligarch-friendly economic agenda on Milei's, journalist Jacob Silverman—author of the forthcoming book Gilded Rage: Elon Musk and the Radicalization of Silicon Valley—argued that allowing the libertarian radical to twist in the wind is not an option for Trump.
"Javier Milei can't be allowed to fail," Silverman said, "because MAGA leaders and the tech right have propped him up as a true libertarian fighting the globalists and 'doing what needs to be done': Immiserating his people on behalf of private capital."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rewarding Risk Drove First Republic to Failure
Risk was at the center of every financial upheaval since the 1980s. What can be done to keep history from repeating itself and threatening the banking system, economy, and jobs of everyday people?
May 02, 2023
First Republic Bank became the second-biggest bank failure in U.S. history after the lender was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and sold to JPMorgan Chase on May 1, 2023. First Republic is the latest victim of the panic that has roiled small and midsize banks since the failure of Silicon Valley Bank in March 2023.
The collapse of SVB and now First Republic underscores how the impact of risky decisions at one bank can quickly spread into the broader financial system. It should also provide the impetus for policymakers and regulators to address a systemic problem that has plagued the banking industry from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s to the financial crisis of 2008 to the recent turmoil following SVB’s demise: incentive structures that encourage excessive risk-taking.
The Federal Reserve’s top regulator seems to agree. On April 28, the central bank’s vice chair for supervision delivered a stinging report on the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, blaming its failures on its weak risk management, as well as supervisory missteps.
In each of the financial upheavals since the 1980s, the common denominator was risk.
We are professors of economics who study and teach the history of financial crises. In each of the financial upheavals since the 1980s, the common denominator was risk. Banks provided incentives that encouraged executives to take big risks to boost profits, with few consequences if their bets turned bad. In other words, all carrot and no stick.
One question we are grappling with now is what can be done to keep history from repeating itself and threatening the banking system, economy, and jobs of everyday people.
S&L Crisis Sets the Stage
The precursor to the banking crises of the 21st century was the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.
The so-called S&L crisis, like the collapse of SVB, began in a rapidly changing interest rate environment. Savings and loan banks, also known as thrifts, provided home loans at attractive interest rates. When the Federal Reserve under Chairman Paul Volcker aggressively raised rates in the late 1970s to fight raging inflation, S&Ls were suddenly earning less on fixed-rate mortgages while having to pay higher interest to attract depositors. At one point, their losses topped US$100 billion.
S&L executives were often paid based on the size of their institutions’ assets, and they aggressively lent to commercial real estate projects, taking on riskier loans to grow their loan portfolios quickly.
To help the teetering banks, the federal government deregulated the thrift industry, allowing S&Ls to expand beyond home loans to commercial real estate. S&L executives were often paid based on the size of their institutions’ assets, and they aggressively lent to commercial real estate projects, taking on riskier loans to grow their loan portfolios quickly.
In the late 1980s, the commercial real estate boom turned bust. S&Ls, burdened by bad loans, failed in droves, requiring the federal government take over banks and delinquent commercial properties and sell the assets to recover money paid to insured depositors. Ultimately, the bailout cost taxpayers more than $100 billion.
Short-Term Incentives
The 2008 crisis is another obvious example of incentive structures that encourage risky strategies.
At all levels of mortgage financing–from Main Street lenders to Wall Street investment firms–executives prospered by taking excessive risks and passing them to someone else. Lenders passed mortgages made to people who could not afford them onto Wall Street firms, which in turn bundled those into securities to sell to investors. It all came crashing down when the housing bubble burst, followed by a wave of foreclosures.
Incentives rewarded short-term performance, and executives responded by taking bigger risks for immediate gains. At the Wall Street investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, profits grew as the firms bundled increasingly risky loans into mortgage-backed securities to sell, buy, and hold.
Incentives rewarded short-term performance, and executives responded by taking bigger risks for immediate gains.
As foreclosures spread, the value of these securities plummeted, and Bear Stearns collapsed in early 2008, providing the spark of the financial crisis. Lehman failed in September of that year, paralyzing the global financial system and plunging the U.S. economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Executives at the banks, however, had already cashed in, and none were held accountable. Researchers at Harvard University estimated that top executive teams at Bear Stearns and Lehman pocketed a combined $2.4 billion in cash bonuses and stock sales from 2000 to 2008.
A Familiar Ring
That brings us back to Silicon Valley Bank.
Executives tied up the bank’s assets in long-term Treasury and mortgage-backed securities, failing to protect against rising interest rates that would undermine the value of these assets. The interest rate risk was particularly acute for SVB, since a large share of depositors were startups, whose finances depend on investors’ access to cheap money.
When the Fed began raising interest rates last year, SVB was doubly exposed. As startups’ fundraising slowed, they withdrew money, which required SVB to sell long-term holdings at a loss to cover the withdrawals. When the extent of SVB’s losses became known, depositors lost trust, spurring a run that ended with SVB’s collapse.
For executives, however, there was little downside in discounting or even ignoring the risk of rising rates.
For executives, however, there was little downside in discounting or even ignoring the risk of rising rates. The cash bonus of SVB CEO Greg Becker more than doubled to $3 million in 2021 from $1.4 million in 2017, lifting his total earnings to $10 million, up 60% from four years earlier. Becker also sold nearly $30 million in stock over the past two years, including some $3.6 million in the days leading up to his bank’s failure.
The impact of the failure was not contained to SVB. Share prices of many midsize banks tumbled. Another American bank, Signature, collapsed days after SVB did.
First Republic survived the initial panic in March after it was rescued by a consortium of major banks led by JPMorgan Chase, but the damage was already done. First Republic recently reported that depositors withdrew more than $100 billion in the six weeks following SVB’s collapse, and on May 1, the FDIC seized control of the bank and engineered a sale to JPMorgan Chase.
The crisis isn’t over yet. Banks had over $620 billion in unrealized losses at the end of 2022, largely due to rapidly rising interest rates.
The Big Picture
So, what’s to be done?
We believe the bipartisan bill recently filed in Congress, the Failed Bank Executives Clawback, would be a good start. In the event of a bank failure, the legislation would empower regulators to claw back compensation received by bank executives in the five-year period preceding the failure.
Clawbacks, however, kick in only after the fact. To prevent risky behavior, regulators could require executive compensation to prioritize long-term performance over short-term gains. And new rules could restrict the ability of bank executives to take the money and run, including requiring executives to hold substantial portions of their stock and options until they retire.
To prevent risky behavior, regulators could require executive compensation to prioritize long-term performance over short-term gains.
The Fed’s new report on what led to SVB’s failure points in this direction. The 102-page report recommends new limits on executive compensation, saying leaders “were not compensated to manage the bank’s risk,” as well as stronger stress-testing and higher liquidity requirements.
We believe these are also good steps, but probably not enough.
It comes down to this: Financial crises are less likely to happen if banks and bank executives consider the interest of the entire banking system, not just themselves, their institutions, and shareholders.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular