During its first nine months, United States President Donald Trump's administration has deployed warships in the Caribbean, blown up small boats accused of drug trafficking, imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian products and exerted extreme pressure on the Mexican government to reduce the flow of migrants across the border and combat local drug cartels.
The heinous televised murders of those on the small boats in Caribbean waters violates every international convention, statute and protocol and are the greatest evidence yet that under Trump, US imperialism is radically shifting its approach to the region, which it continues to view as its domain.
Amid the substantive changes occurring in post-World War II global power relations, the authoritarian US president is attempting to impose the rule that “the United States runs the planet.” Given this, Latin America was always going to be affected.
But why are Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela the most immediate targets? While important, the argument that all three governments are “leftist”, according to Trump’s neo-fascist hawks, is insufficient.
For Trump, this simply means any government opposed to it on the political-ideological spectrum, or not a direct and subservient defender of US capital’s interests, despite the significant differences among them.
Mexico
The pressure exerted on the Mexican government is almost self-explanatory, considering the long border it shares with the US, its level of economic dependence (more than 80% of Mexican exports go north), and the power and violence of Mexico’s drug cartels.
The aggressive and extortionist rhetoric against Mexico began during Trump’s first days in the White House, demanding Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum hold back the multitudes of Latin Americans that have historically tried to enter the US by crossing the Rio Grande, or face 25% tariffs. Sheinbaum responded by sending 10,000 troops to the border.
Pressure to take tougher measures against the powerful drug cartels — now designated as “terrorists” by the US — was exerted through Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s constant threats of direct US military intervention in Mexico.
Sheinbaum has already deported 26 people to the US accused of belonging to high-ranking drug trafficking groups, and arrested more than 30,000 people suspected of being part of criminal organisations (compared to just over 12,000 jailed during the six years of her predecessor).
Still unsatisfied, Trump has threatened higher tariffs if Mexico does not stop importing from China, and has not ruled out its campaign plans to heavily tax remittances by Mexican citizens — currently worth about US$60 billion or almost 4% of Mexico’s GDP — and carry out drone strikes against drug labs in Mexico.
These are just some of the tactics Trump has used as key tools for blackmail and threats.
So far, Sheinbaum has managed to prevent direct intervention in her country, albeit at a high political cost. According to the New York Times, the people around the president, apparently exasperated by the situation, have complained that no matter how many concessions they make, they can never rest as the US seems to have no limits on its demands.
Sheinbaum and her Morena colleagues seem to have forgotten (or never realised) that this is how imperialism operates — even more so the aggressive neocolonialist imperialism of their “partner”, Trump.
Brazil
Trump’s attacks against Brazil have involved direct interference in the South American country’s internal politics and judicial system.
The 50% tariffs on Brazilian exports have no economic justification, even under the crazed protectionist logic of the MAGA hawks: Brazil has a trade deficit with the US and the US market is in dire need of basic “Made in Brazil” goods, such as coffee, oranges and semi-finished steel.
Trump and Rubio’s explanation for the tariffs was explicit: their discontent with the trial (and now sentencing) of their friend, former president Jair Bolsonaro, and many of his former aides for an attempted coup in 2022–23, which they dubbed a “witch hunt”.
Given their political nature, the tariffs quickly became a major source of confrontation inside Brazil between, on the one hand, the government and democratic sectors, and on the other, the far right.
The Bolsonaro family and their supporters seized on the imperialist attack to claim responsibility, took to the streets to demand amnesty for the coup plotters, and kept one of the former president’s sons in the US to lobby for further attacks.
To achieve their goal, they leveraged a parliamentary alliance with the traditional oligarchic and pro-corporate right in order to urgently pass an amnesty bill and vote for a proposed constitutional amendment (PEC) that would prevent trials and investigations of any kind against parliamentarians and party leaders.
They miscalculated, underestimating public opinion: their dual manoeuvre only fuelled mobilisations. Hundreds of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets on September 21 to protest against the “PEC of Impunity” (or PEC of Banditry, as it became popularly referred to) and against any amnesty.
The PEC was buried, and with it, the amnesty bill. In fact, the campaign against the tariffs, and its openness to negotiation while affirming democracy as non-negotiable, has led to a surge in support for President Lula da Silva and his government.
While it is an exaggeration to claim that genuine anti-imperialism has become the majority sentiment, opposition to Yankee interference and a sense of sovereignty was fundamental to this victory achieved through mobilisation.
Venezuela
While no nation in the region is exempt from potential threats to its territorial sovereignty, the country most under military threat right now is Venezuela.
Venezuela and its Bolivarian revolution — buried by the authoritarianism and anti-worker policies of the Maduro regime — have always been a huge thorn in US imperialism’s side.
Today, Trump’s expansionist hawks seek to overthrow Maduro, taking advantage of his government’s enormous internal weakness, and replace him with a far-right alternative, subservient to Washington.
But what explains the shift in the US’ position, if until now the Maduro government had been negotiating with it since 2018, and just recently once again guaranteed Venezuela would be a reliable oil supplier?
The explanation lies in the global realignment taking place, with its new distribution of spheres of influence and power relations under construction. The Trump administration wants a figure of the new international fascist far right — in this case, María Corina Machado — to lead the Venezuelan government. It does not want instability during this reorganisation process, but rather absolute submission within the new framework. Whether it can achieve this is another matter.
The issue is that regime change in Venezuela seems impossible without some kind of direct intervention, which would generate a backlash in US public opinion. This makes the situation more complex. That is why they have resorted to talking up the need to militarily combat international drug trafficking to win domestic support for their interventionist policy.
The right-wing Venezuelan opposition, led by Machado, has called for sanctions against Venezuela in the recent past, without considering their effects on the poor. Today, she believes that US soldiers will remove Maduro and place her in power. To this end, she has offered up the nation’s territory and its riches on a silver platter.
For now, the US administration seems to want to weaken the Maduro government, banking on the emergence of internal fissures and Maduro’s removal by local military officials. The question is: what will they do if this does not occur?
A potential post-US military intervention scenario with an anti-worker government headed by Machado and former presidential candidate Edmundo González, and confronted by the remnants of the Chavista opposition, would be largely ungovernable.
Consequently, the US’ real objective appears to be the imposition of a military dictatorship in Venezuela propped up with its direct assistance, including through the establishment of military bases in the country. This would consolidate its regional objectives within the unfolding global reorganisation process.
On the other hand, the social decomposition in Venezuela is so profound that the possibility of a foreign attack has not sparked the expected reaction from the population. The Maduro government has activated the militias and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) political apparatus, but the extent of this mobilisation has been much smaller than claimed.
The only way to awaken a broad national front in opposition to US intervention would be to reverse the package of measures that the government has implemented, especially since 2018. This would involve: significantly restructuring wages; restoring the electoral registration of left-wing parties to their legitimate leaders and activists; a general amnesty for political prisoners; and the redirection of national wealth towards restoring social security and people’s material wellbeing.
Only by taking these steps can the Maduro government bring about a change in the current catastrophic situation, but that would entail breaking with the program of the new capitalist class that emerged under the oil rentier regime of the past 20 years.
The people have already suffered too much to have to face the consequences of a large-scale military operation. The bombs, for the most part, will fall on the poor. Any measure that averts this crisis should be welcomed.
[Abridged from Links — International Journal of Socialist Renewal.]