The election of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States has had a global impact—especially in Latin America, a continent deeply divided in its political options and with a traumatic past regarding its relations with the country to the north. A good reflection of this was the reactions of South American presidents to Trump's early morning announcement that he had won the election. The first to congratulate him, only two hours later, was the Argentinean president, Javier Milei, followed by the Paraguayan and then the Uruguayan. That is to say, the right-wing representatives.

The president of Brazil, identified with centre-left positions, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, was the fourth, four hours later. The fifth, the right-wing Ecuadorian Daniel Noboa, who has plunged his country into a deep crisis; the sixth, the leftist Gustavo Petro; and then the questioned president of Peru, Dina Boluarte. The last three leaders to greet Trump's victory—eight, nine, and ten hours later—were the Venezuelan Nicolás Maduro, the Chilean Gabriel Boric, and finally the head of state of Bolivia, Luis Arce. Mostly they did it by X, Instagram, and Facebook. Curiously, neither diplomatic channels nor telephone calls were used. Do these small gestures matter? At least they show what is likely to be a relationship that will encounter various difficulties.

Argentina urgently needs a financial lifeline due to its public debt, which is approaching 90% of its GDP, i.e. close to $450 billion. Its maturities are the major concern of a government that received an economy on the floor, payment commitments with the IMF and the Chinese government that it will hardly be able to meet, so Milei will make a pilgrimage to Washington (or Miami)—hat in hand, as they say in Italy—as soon as he is given the time, hoping to be the first president of the region to visit him and express his loyalty. For its part, Mexico, the main trading partner of the United States, with an exchange of goods amounting to 800 billion dollars, has already been warned by Trump that it is not only immigration that is the problem it faces, but also the possibility of higher tariffs, which seems unimaginable, given that a large number of companies that export to the United States originate in that country.

Such a measure would in turn lead to the closure of companies with a consequent increase in unemployment and greater pressure to emigrate. However, in the “Trump world” it seems to be an option that should not be discarded. The same could happen with China, which is seen as the main adversary threatening U.S. hegemony, which could generate a similar response from Beijing and with it the start of a trade war. The European Union faces a similar situation due to the recent increase in tariffs on Chinese electric cars, agreed in a divided vote, which could cause it to lose market share in that country and weaken the position of the Europeans.

With Venezuela—despite the electoral fraud that occurred in the last elections in which President Nicolás Maduro was proclaimed the winner—the United States, which has not recognised his victory, has automatically renewed the license to the oil company Chevron to continue operating together with the Venezuelan state company (PDVSA), despite the fact that President Biden indicated that this measure would be reviewed. This ensures the inflow of foreign currency to Maduro's government and of crude oil to the United States. Trump will hardly cancel the licenses in force to the government of Caracas that allow Chevron to extract more than 120 thousand barrels of oil per day.

Every Latin American country has a score to settle with the United States, but it never seems to be the time to seriously review what has been this asymmetrical relationship with the giant of the north. In the recent vote to lift the embargo on Cuba, last October 30, in the United Nations General Assembly, 187 countries voted in favour; two voted against: the United States and Israel; and one abstained: Moldova. All of Latin America supports this measure just as it supports Argentina in its claim against the United Kingdom for the Malvinas Islands. However, President Milei dismissed his foreign minister for voting in favour of lifting the embargo. Vassalage in foreign policy sooner or later ends up harming the very national interest it seeks to defend.

The final responsibility for Donald Trump's triumph should be sought more in the policies conducted by the Biden administration, at the national and international level, as well as in the weaknesses of the candidate who faced him. The United States today is very different from the country at the beginning of this century. There are already a couple of generations of Latinos or Hispanics born in the United States and who, apart from the colour of their skin, are culturally American. In the coming “Trump world”, which will affect traditional views of foreign policy, especially in Europe, we will be surprised again as when the president traveled in 2019 to meet the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-um, and in addition to the handshake, crossed the 38th parallel that divides the two Koreas, to the astonishment of his historical ally, Seoul, and his NATO partners.

On the economic front, Trump has shown signs of being unhappy with globalisation and the free flow of goods and services. Many Latin American countries, starting with Mexico, have free trade agreements in force with the United States. In a world where the international system is increasingly weakened, including the United Nations and the World Trade Organization (WTO), Trump could denounce some agreements under the premise of MAGA (Make America Great Again). Behind this acronym lies a vision of the deep United States, the one where a majority of Americans are proud of their country; their scientific, industrial, military, and agricultural production; their hamburgers, cars, and their airplanes; where they care little about what happens outside their borders, such as what is happening today in Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine, or Sudan.

Twice the Americans have been pressured into the two world wars provoked by the Europeans. They became a global power, but today they resent their mistakes in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or the Middle East. It seems that they do not want more wars and even less to sacrifice their boys. Latin America is not a concern for the United States today. The danger of socialist revolutions is in the past and it is only a matter of time before the definitive collapse of the regimes that still exist in the region amidst the poverty and frustration of its inhabitants. Latin America is located in a sort of geostrategic shadow, without military or economic power and with a great technological dependence, where only countries such as Mexico or Brazil can attempt a policy of real independence.

The rest of the continent is easy to align. Natural wealth continues to be Latin America's great strategic reserve, and the United States maintains its interest in keeping the presence of China, Russia, or Iran at bay. The first reports of Trump's appointments regarding foreign policy, defense, immigration, environment, and economy give a clear signal of how the hand will come and who will be responsible for privileging Trump's vision regarding the international order. There will hardly be much room for dialogue. The election results showed a different face of the United States where a significant Trump vote came from white women, African-Americans, Latinos, and young people. Latin America's political elites should take note that, along with the economy, illegal immigration, violence, and value issues also matter in societies where ideological principles seem to lose presence.