Last Monday, the US State Department sent a notification, not entirely strange but not usual either, informing about specific measures "to defend democratic governance throughout our hemisphere against corruption and drug trafficking." These were not sanctions against drug traffickers, cartels, or usual criminals, but measures against active judges and prosecutors. The latest statement from the leaders of the Shield of the Americas, the organization of countries with allied governments that met with Donald Trump in New York on the sidelines of the UN Assembly, spoke of "coordinating sanctions, designations, and financial actions against terrorists and criminals who undermine security, the rule of law, and democracy." In that line, the Department led by Marco Rubio published a list of those affected in a new round of visa revocations.
Among them, officials from Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, but mainly from Bolivia, with the Attorney General, Roger Mariaca, at the forefront "for his involvement in large-scale corruption cases", the document stated. Mariaca, elected in 2024 for a six-year term during the presidency of Luis Arce, "abused his public office by requesting and accepting bribes to facilitate drug trafficking and helped violent criminals evade justice. His actions endanger President Trump's efforts to combat narco-terrorism and undermine the same democratic institutions that Bolivia, as a participant in the Shield program, seeks to strengthen. The message from President Trump and Secretary Rubio is clear: corrupt officials —and the criminals they protect— are not welcome in the United States," concluded the statement from the same government that in December unexpectedly and without justification pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, former president of Honduras, who had been sentenced in 2024 by a federal court in New York for conspiring to import cocaine into the US and for weapons offenses and was serving a 45-year prison sentence.
Less than 48 hours later, Mariaca was detained at Viru Viru airport in Santa Cruz and apparently handed over to the DEA, the US anti-drug agency. The prosecutor denies the accusations and stated that the visa revocation was an act of "interference" and "political pressure" due to his investigations. Among others, the one open for attempted murder, illicit enrichment, and money laundering against Fernando Cerimedo, an Argentine political consultant, partner of the Spaniard Javier Negre, former advisor to President Paz... and close to the Trumpism circle and the Trump family. A key figure to understand the alliance network of the new Latin American right, coordinated among its main figures and with Washington.
"THE SPOILS, FOR THE VICTORS" The goal is no longer disguised
Since January 2025, the US administration has made it clear that it is willing to do anything anywhere to preserve its interests. Or those of the leader's family. Insults, provocations, warnings, threats, sanctions, tariffs, bombings, and even military operations to capture a head of state.
In the continent, no one is shocked as in Europe because we are not facing something unprecedented. Everyone remembers the Operation Condor, the coordination network between the military dictatorships of the Southern Cone that shared information and operated to pursue, kidnap, torture, and assassinate political opponents during the 70s and 80s. And they emphasize that the history of abuses, interferences, coups, and regime changes directed or instigated by the US is endless. The big difference is that what used to be disguised before is now openly flaunted. Before, the geographical scope was more limited, and now the board covers the entire planet. And in the process, no longer defended by appealing to geopolitics and realism, the Cold War, or the communist threat, the president's relatives and friends are getting even richer. From the "he's a son of a bitch but our son of a bitch" of the last century, it has moved to "the spoils are for the victors," as Trump said unabashedly in September at a convention in Dallas. He was talking about Venezuela, but it applies to his entire policy, nationally and internationally.
Just recently, Trump published the mobile number of a senator from his party, Tom Cotton, who does not support a bill to eliminate daylight saving time. "Almost everyone wants it to be approved except Tom Cotton. Let him know it would be a great victory, call his mobile," he urged his millions of followers. Among the arguments to defend the bill, there is no mention of possible benefits or economic savings, energy issues, but rather personal preferences and hobbies. "Everyone will appreciate it. No one wants to waste their valuable time running back and forth, changing the clocks twice a year, and having sunlight in the afternoon is better than in the morning! The PGA TOUR, for example, needs more daylight in the afternoon to finish their tournaments," he said.
On Thursday, CNN revealed that Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and one of his two main negotiators for Russia and the Middle East, has the main stake through his Affinity Partners fund in Phoenix Holdings, one of the largest Israeli financial groups, which in turn has an investment of over $265 million in Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms manufacturer. A blatant conflict of interest, one more, by the same person who seeks and accepts multimillion-dollar contributions from Gulf countries, the same ones that have 'gifted' Trump with a new 'Air Force One' more in line with his aesthetic preferences. Yet another example of something that not long ago would have led to resignations or prosecutions but now has no consequences.
NEGOTIATE AND PRESSURE Coercion is no longer a last resort, but the preferred method
Critics of Donald Trump denounce that his foreign policy no longer distinguishes between negotiating and pressuring, between national and personal interests; between exchanging views and open blackmail. Coercion is no longer a last resort, but the preferred method. "Most indicators show that US soft power has decreased since the beginning of Trump's second term. In the past, this has been threatened on numerous occasions and has always recovered, at least for the most part. The singularity of this Administration, however, is that it is destroying, both involuntarily and intentionally, the traditional sources and instruments of US soft power, causing damage that could take decades to repair," points out Sara Yerkes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Trump has used threats and tariffs repeatedly because it is not only his preferred tool for trade negotiations but also his basic lever for foreign policy. He has used it to erect the highest protectionist wall in a century, to intimidate friends and foes, to try to reduce his trade deficit by force. But also to help political allies, to interfere in elections (from Brazil to Argentina), to influence the judicial systems of other countries.
The examples are endless and well-known. This week alone, he did it with the UK or France and later with the entire G-7 desperately trying to lower diesel prices (to six dollars per gallon) less than a month before the US legislative elections. "Europe has just agreed to release a huge amount of its diesel reserves. The process will start immediately," he celebrated on Friday on his social network about yet another concession. "I am pleased to announce that the agreement with the Republic of Korea continues to improve! $8.4 billion for an enhanced oil recovery project. Producing more oil and gas means US energy dominance and global energy security for the future!" he wrote at the same time about another forced negotiation and said that if the Koreans do not agree to other projects, such as a pipeline in Alaska, he will "charge them more."
In Greenland, he said the US would take control "one way or another," not ruling out the military option, and threatened tariffs on Denmark if they resisted. He repeatedly used this blackmail tactic to force Ukraine to sign an agreement for privileged access to rare minerals in exchange for continuing to support Kiev. And in the case of Argentina, he conditioned financial aid on the election outcome: if his ally Milei did not win, there would be no money. And regarding Venezuela, he speaks without any restraint: "We have taken control of the country, we are extracting billions and billions of dollars in oil. And very soon we will fill our strategic reserves for nothing," he celebrated on Friday at a rally.
This month, two equally striking and serious cases have come to light. The Wall Street Journal published a story on the 25th about the U.S. ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News presenter and ex-fiancée of Donald Trump Jr. (and ex-wife of Democratic presidential candidate Gavin Newsom). Guilfoyle, appointed as compensation after her breakup with the president's son, has spent much of her time (between fashion shows in Paris and Milan) promoting the so-called "Vertical Gas Corridor," which would transport U.S. liquefied natural gas from Greek terminals to Bulgaria, Romania, and Ukraine.
The most striking part of the report is a quote attributed to the ambassador during a dinner in Athens in March with high-ranking Greek and U.S. officials. According to the WSJ (later confirmed by other media), Guilfoyle argued with the Minister of Energy, Stavros Papastavrou, and, referring to the imminent collapse of the Romanian government, said: "We can do this with any country we want. We can do it here." Papastavrou replied that the U.S. could not replace a government elected by the Greeks, but the warning, or boastful comment, remained there.
"IT WAS VERY FUNNY"
Former White House spokesperson mocks humiliating Starmer
The second case is different but shows the same arrogance. In an interview with one of Trump's favorite journalists, former White House spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, recounted with laughter a visit by the president to the UK to meet with the then British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. "It was exactly a year ago, and I sat at a lunch with the president and Starmer, and we were sitting around the table, all enjoying lunch, in this beautiful place. And the president just started tearing into him for his policies. 'Your policies are stupid, you have to close your borders. It's that simple, you have to deport these people. You know, I know your country, I know your people. They hate what you're doing, and you have to do it.' And we were at his house, in his country. We weren't even in the White House, in our own territory. It was very funny," Leavitt celebrated.
"As their appeal and legitimacy erode, and their soft power diminishes, the United States is likely to have to compensate for this loss if it wishes to achieve certain objectives through methods—such as financial incentives, sanctions, or the use of force—that are more costly than those that generate consensus. A foreign policy that relies more on coercion and hard power than on soft power also carries the risk of triggering more serious and hostile adverse reactions. This is a costly and potentially very dangerous path for the United States," warns Yerkes.
Trump supporters reject this entire narrative. They argue that it is working, that the results are evident, and cite, for example, the cooperation of Mexico at the border following tariff threats and the use of special forces on their territory. The U.S. considers any means legitimate, from bombing boats to sabotage, pressuring officials with alleged ties to drug trafficking, to overthrowing governments. "Bolivia's actions demonstrate the type of leadership needed to make our hemisphere safer, stronger, and more prosperous," celebrated U.S. Foreign Minister Marco Rubio this week.
"Trump's foreign policy is based on the realistic premise that nations lean towards perceived strength but shy away from wavering or weak leadership," defends Victor Davis Hanson, historian and conservative commentator. "Of course, it would have been preferable for Trump to transform the international landscape for the benefit of the United States through cordiality and respectful dialogue. But that was not one of the viable options. The record of U.S. diplomacy under Obama and Biden was characterized by masking the insidious decline of the country, while Trump has been willing to bear the cost of appearing petty or aggressive to ensure a safer and fairer world for the U.S. According to the prevailing view after decades of well-meaning thinking, a submissive and predictable America was necessary for our allies and enemies to respect us and treat us with reciprocity. Trump has shown that it was precisely the opposite," concludes Davis Hanson.