U.S. Aid Is Crucial to Defending Democracy in Latin America
'Why are there never coup attempts inside the United States?' an old joke among left-wing activists in Latin America goes. 'Because there is no U.S. embassy there.'
It's a reference to U.S. actions during the Cold War to undermine democratically elected governments across the region, including Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in the 1950s and Chilean President Salvador Allende in the 1970s. Under the auspices of fighting communism, Washington backed right-wing military coups and dictatorships throughout the hemisphere. As late as the 1980s, Jeanne Kirkpatrick—a foreign policy adviser to then-President Ronald Reagan who later served as his ambassador to the United Nations—issued a defense of authoritarian regimes that she believed helped to protect their populations from even worse revolutionary ideologies.
But the joke was outdated even before January 2021, when then-U.S. President Donald Trump tried to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In fact, over recent decades, the view of the United States as a defender of authoritarianism, at least in Latin America, has become an anachronism. Eventually, Washington lent support to the Concertacion coalition that defeated then-dictator Augusto Pinochet at the polls and led to the reestablishment of democracy in Chile in 1990. And in 2001, the U.S. backed the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which clearly states in its opening that '[t]he peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it,' while promising to remove nondemocratic governments from various hemispheric institutions.
More recently, perhaps the top three achievements of former President Joe Biden's policies in Latin America all came in defense of democracy. His administration supported a democratic transition in Honduras in 2021 after Xiomara Castro defeated the ruling National Party's candidate in the country's presidential election that year. Washington then had outgoing President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had stolen Honduras' 2017 presidential election, extradited on drug-trafficking charges so he could no longer interfere in domestic politics. A year later, Biden's team pressured Brazil's military leadership to stay clear of a coup attempt led by outgoing President Jair Bolsonaro after Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva won that country's presidential election in 2022. And the Biden team safeguarded an incredibly difficult presidential transition in Guatemala at the end of 2023 to ensure that President Bernardo Arevalo took office, overcoming the efforts of that country's corrupt elites to keep him from power.
To get more in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs from WPR, sign up for our free Daily Review newsletter.
The U.S. record is far from perfect, and this column will no doubt provoke responses detailing the many wrongs Washington has committed in the region in recent years. But the U.S. really did shift toward a more pro-democracy stance in Latin America since the end of the Cold War. As part of that shift, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, funded numerous local NGOs that promoted human rights and anti-corruption efforts. The National Endowment for Democracy—a government-funded semi-autonomous organization—backed training for political parties and civil society that contributed to grassroots civic activism at the heart of democratic values, winning NED the hatred of authoritarian leaders who viewed those efforts as a violation of their sovereignty. Various other U.S. agencies also provide grants for research and think tank work that is critical to policy debates in the region. All those efforts go beyond the specific episodes, such as those by the Biden administration, when the U.S. government backed a democratic movement at a critical moment. They were cooked into U.S. policy in nearly every country.
That is not to say that U.S. support is the only thing sustaining democracy in Latin America. Democracy can't be imposed from abroad. The biggest efforts come from the people of Latin America, who work to improve their countries' governance on a daily basis. They deserve far more credit than the U.S. does. But U.S. funding and leadership has become a critical part of the scaffolding and infrastructure for promoting democracy and civil society throughout the hemisphere.
Many groups have come to depend on it and were not prepared for the shock of recent weeks, when with minimal warning, that scaffolding was suddenly ripped away after Trump returned to the White House in January. Working through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, run by Elon Musk, the Trump administration has put a freeze on nearly all foreign aid. Even programs that supposedly received waivers remain stuck in limbo, and payments that U.S. judges have ordered USAID to unfreeze do not seem to be flowing. In my conversations with analysts and activists across Latin America in February, I've been stunned by the sheer number of accounts I've heard of offices closing and laying off employees, important humanitarian assistance being cut and contracts not being paid by the U.S. government, even for work that has already been completed. It will likely take months before the full extent of the job losses and program shutdowns are reported.
Authoritarians around the region are gleeful at the turn of events. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has taken to Twitter/X to encourage Musk to cut funding for NED, whose efforts Bukele portrayed as not only wasted but bad for the region. Bukele has also cheered on both Trump's efforts to defy the judicial branch and calls by Trump's supporters to remove judges who attempt to block his policies.
In the short term, civil society organizations in Latin America are just trying to survive long enough to find new funding sources. Many op-eds have been written discussing how China or other global powers may fill the vacuum as the U.S. withdraws from its influential position in the region. But so far, there is just a vacuum. Contrary to the accusations thrown around by DOGE about waste, fraud and abuse, the vast majority of these NGOs and political parties were never particularly well-funded. They survived on shoestring budgets, and replacing the funds for any one of them would be a drop in the bucket for an interested patron. But for every organization that finds a new source of funding, many others will be forced to shut down. No other country or global institution has the resources and interest to fund these groups at the level the U.S. did just a few months ago.
The long-term implications of this cut are incredibly damaging to U.S. interests. Along with the shock, the sudden collapse of funding is generating a sense of betrayal among civil society in Latin America—with good reason. The U.S. has broken its promises and let them down. They won't easily trust the dependability of U.S. support in the future. Decades of efforts by the U.S. to shed its Cold War reputation are being swiftly undermined, not by an activist foreign policy that directly supports dictators, but by one that cuts off aid to the grassroots organizations on the front lines of Latin America's efforts to push back creeping authoritarianism.
If and when the U.S. tries to readopt a more supportive role for democracy and civil society four or eight years from now, it will likely find a much more hostile and distrustful environment. That will benefit the United States' adversaries around the world, but more immediately it will benefit democracy's adversaries in the region.
James Bosworth is the founder of Hxagon, a firm that does political risk analysis and bespoke research in emerging and frontier markets, as well as a global fellow at the Wilson Center's Latin America Program. He has two decades of experience analyzing politics, economics and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The post U.S. Aid Is Crucial to Defending Democracy in Latin America appeared first on World Politics Review.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's autopen fixation, explained
President Donald Trump first focused on Joe Biden's use of the autopen in March, leaning into the idea that the former president's use of the tool to sign documents showed that he wasn't in charge while in the White House and that his actions were 'null and void.' At the time, conservative executive authority scholar John Yoo wagered to CNN that Trump was 'just having fun at Biden's expense.' Trump on Wednesday sought to take this outside the realm of mere 'fun.' He ordered an investigation of Biden's use of the autopen and its supposed links to Biden's 'cognitive decline.' The move is guaranteed to breathe even more life into a story that has proven to be catnip for conservative media eager to keep the focus on the alleged coverup of Biden's decline. And Trump has certainly shown a talent for seeding baseless conspiracy theories for political gain (see: birtherism and the false notion that the 2020 election was rigged, among them.) But it's difficult to see how this leads anywhere, for a few reasons. The first is that there is nothing evidently wrong or unlawful about using the autopen. In 2005, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (under Republican President George W. Bush) conducted an extensive review of the legality of a president using the autopen. It found that 'the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it within the meaning of Article I, Section 7.' Trump has most often focused his autopen theory on Biden's pardons. (The idea that these are invalid would ostensibly allow Trump's Justice Department to investigate and charge the people Biden preemptively pardoned.) But there too, established legal advice from past administrations undermines the claim. A 1929 memo from the US solicitor general noted that the Constitution didn't even prescribe a method for issuing pardons. That means they don't necessarily even need to be publicly documented. (You might have heard in recent years about the prospect of 'secret' pardons.) And the memo explicitly says that pardons 'need not have the president's autograph.' The other key point is that many presidents have used this practice in one form or another. Thomas Jefferson bought and used such a machine back when it was first patented in 1803, according to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation. And even Trump himself has acknowledged using the autopen for certain things. Trump said back in March he has used it but 'only for very unimportant papers.' He specifically cited responding to people's letters. But in another case, Trump rather curiously seemed to indicate that he hadn't signed a major proclamation that bore his signature – the one at issue in his attempt to rapidly deport migrants using the Alien Enemies Act. That proclamation is a major issue in litigation that has already reached all the way to the Supreme Court. 'I don't know when it was signed, because I didn't sign it,' Trump said, adding: 'Other people handled it, but (Secretary of State) Marco Rubio has done a great job and he wanted them out and we go along with that.' Given the proclamation bore Trump's signature, that seemed to raise the possibility that the administration might have used the autopen for it. The White House later claimed Trump had in fact signed the proclamation and that he was instead referring to not having signed the original Alien Enemies Act. (But that argument strained credulity, given Trump cited how 'other people handled it' and the fact that the Alien Enemies Act dates to 1798. That means there is no way anyone could ever believe Trump might have signed it. The question Trump responded to also specifically referenced the proclamation, not the 1798 law.) In another way, Trump's Wednesday night memorandum isn't really about the autopen. It's about using that as a shorthand for something else entirely: what the memo calls Biden's 'cognitive decline.' Trump's order isn't just about reviewing whether any autopen signatures used by Biden were lawful; it also cites the idea that people used it as part of an effort to 'unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.' 'I'm sure that he didn't know many of the things – look, he was never for open borders, he was never for transgender for everybody, he was never for men playing in women's sports. All of these things that changed so radically, I don't think he had any idea … what was going on,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president.' This theory – if ever somehow proven – would actually matter. The 2005 Bush Justice Department memo, for instance, made clear that while presidents could outsource the signing of documents, that doesn't mean they could necessarily outsource the decisions to sign the documents. The OLC memo emphasizes that 'we do not question the substantial authority supporting the view that the President must personally decide whether to approve and sign bills.' But however compelling the evidence that Biden administration officials covered up his decline, there remains no evidence that he wasn't actually making decisions to sign things. That's taking things to an entirely different level. Biden's advisers have denied any coordinated effort to conceal from the public his deteriorating condition during the final years of his presidency. And the 2005 DOJ memo suggests it would have to prove more than just that Biden wasn't particularly engaged, but that he didn't make the final decisions. Trump was asked Thursday if he had uncovered 'anything specific' that was signed without Biden's knowledge or by people in his administration who acted illegally. Trump said, 'No.' Biden, for his part, issued some strong statements late Wednesday. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,' the former president said. 'Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.' The former president also called this 'nothing more than a distraction' to obscure Republicans' push for a dicey Trump agenda bill, which features Medicaid cuts in the House-passed version. The Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday that this could lead to millions of people losing their health insurance. Indeed, the political utility of the theory underlying Trump's memo is readily apparent. It's wildly popular in conservative media, with Fox News already devoting dozens of stories and extensive coverage to it. That includes this week when other outlets were focused on a decidedly less helpful story for the Trump administration: Elon Musk bashing the president's domestic policy bill. It's also nearly impossible to disprove it. History suggests that arriving at actual proof of Trump's theory is often besides the point for Trump. It's about repetition and seeding doubt. And Wednesday's action is clearly in line with that history.


Hamilton Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump suggests Biden aides acted without then-president's knowledge — but says he has no evidence
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump alleged Thursday that officials in Joe Biden 's administration might have in effect forged their boss's signature and taken broad actions he wasn't aware of — while acknowledging he had no evidence that actually happened. Meeting in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz , Trump repeated his long-standing allegations that the Biden White House relied on an autopen to sign presidential pardons, executive orders and other key documents, and said that cast doubt on their validity. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,' Trump said. 'And that is wrong. It's illegal, it's so bad and it's so disrespectful to our country.' Trump went on to suggest that rogue elements within Biden's administration were faking his signature and governing without his knowledge, pushing the administration farther to the left than the president himself would have gone. 'He didn't have much of an idea what was going on,' Trump said. But pressed by reporters on whether he had evidence of specific items that were signed without Biden's knowledge, or by others in the administration acting illegally, Trump responded, 'No. But I've uncovered, you know, the human mind.' He referenced the disastrous debate performance that forced Biden to abandon his reelection bid last summer and said, 'I was in a debate with the human mind and I didn't think he knew what the hell he was doing.' Biden, in a statement Wednesday night, rejected any suggestion actions were taken without his knowledge, saying, 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.' That came after Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline' and suggesting that the use of the autopen undermines scores of his actions. The president directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington to handle the investigation, a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries that could lay the groundwork for arguments by Republicans that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. The Justice Department under Democratic and Republican administrations has recognized the use of an autopen to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades. Also, the president's absolute pardon power is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Trump's intensifying allegations against Biden reflect his fixation with his predecessor, who defeated him in 2020 . Trump never conceded the 2020 election and continues to falsely claim it was rigged against him. Even on Thursday, Trump invoked his allegations about the 2020 election. Trump frequently suggests that Biden was wrong to use an autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a person's authentic signature. Trump said Thursday that he himself had used it, including as a way to save time when signing large numbers of letters from young people. Still, he argued that Biden's use of it constituted 'the biggest scandal, maybe in the last hundred years in this country.' Biden issued pardons for his two brothers and his sister shortly before leaving office in January, hoping to shield them from potential prosecution under Trump, who had promised retribution during last year's campaign. Other pardon recipients included members of a congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump often suggests that his political opponents should be investigated, and he has directed the Justice Department to look into people who have angered him over the years. They include Chris Krebs, a former cybersecurity official who disputed Trump's claims of a stolen election in 2020, and Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official who wrote an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president in 2018. Meanwhile, House Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, a Republican, requested transcribed interviews with five Biden aides, alleging they had participated in a 'cover-up' that amounted to 'one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history.' 'These five former senior advisors were eyewitnesses to President Biden's condition and operations within the Biden White House,' Comer said in a statement. 'They must appear before the House Oversight Committee and provide truthful answers about President Biden's cognitive state and who was calling the shots.' Comer also reiterated his call for Biden's physician, Kevin O'Connor, and other former senior White House aides to appear before the committee. He warned subpoenas would be issued this week if they refuse to schedule voluntary interviews. Rep. Brandon Gill, a freshman Republican from Texas, said 'the American people didn't elect a bureaucracy to run the country.' He added, 'I think that the American people deserve to know the truth and they want to know the truth of what happened.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Sunrun CEO Warns Against Congressional 'Rug Pull' on Clean Energy
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The U.S. solar industry took a hit late last month when Republicans in the House of Representatives passed the "big beautiful" budget reconciliation bill that would largely eliminate tax credits for clean energy. Those Biden-era incentives for renewable energy, battery manufacturing, EVs and other clean tech have driven hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in renewable energy. Without the tax policy, analysts warn, more than $500 billion worth of announced but pending investments in the clean tech sector are at risk. Shares for rooftop solar companies tumbled on news of the bill's passage. California-based Sunrun, a leader in combining rooftop solar with home battery energy storage, saw shares plunge nearly 40 percent on news of the bill's passage. "We immediately went to work on how we can ensure our message about the importance of what we do for Americans on energy independence and advancing the agenda around energy dominance is heard," Sunrun CEO Mary Powell told Newsweek as she and colleagues in the clean energy sector attempt to change the bill. "Without changes it would be ripping the rug out from under 5 million plus customers." The company's stock price has since regained much of its value as attention turns to the Senate where the renewable energy industry is hoping that cooler heads will prevail and restore some elements of support. Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the budget bill produced by the House would pull the rug from under the solar and battery storage industries, harming the U.S. ability to meet energy demands. Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the budget bill produced by the House would pull the rug from under the solar and battery storage industries, harming the U.S. ability to meet energy demands. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva/Sunrun Industry executives argue that as the U.S. enters a period of surging demand for electricity, solar, wind and battery storage are often the fastest and cheapest ways to add power. Last year, some combination of renewable energy and storage accounted for roughly 90 percent of new additions to the nation's electric grid. The House bill's draconian cuts to renewable energy pose particular threats to rooftop and community solar. In addition to repealing tax credits far sooner than initially intended, the bill would eliminate the ability to transfer the credits and restrict the use of tax credits in lease arrangements for solar installations, which is a common business model for solar companies. Clean tech companies are also counting on the local economic impact of investments that flowed to red states and Republican Congressional Districts as the renewable energy industry brings more manufacturing on shore to reduce dependence on imported products. About two dozen Republican members of Congress have signed letters supporting the clean energy tax credits, including four influential members of the Senate. Newsweek spoke with Powell, a power industry veteran, about how the industry and her company hope to persuade members of the Senate to make changes. Powell has been Sunrun's CEO since 2021and before that she led Green Mountain Power Corporation, Vermont's main electricity provider, for more than a decade. This conversation has been lightly edited for length. Newsweek: What are your chances of getting this bill to change? And, I guess it would have to change somewhat dramatically from the version that passed the House. Mary Powell: We had multiple conversations with Members to make sure the depth of what we bring to the United States from an energy independence perspective was understood. All of that work will be imported as the Senate now tackles the latest language that ultimately came out of the House. I've been in energy for about 24 years, and I like to say there's always a gravitational pull towards things landing in a commonsense way, something that is supportive of what needs to happen in terms of the American economy and energy capacity. So, I continue to believe that this will land in a reasonable place because that's what would make the most sense for Americans. It also makes the most sense in the context of the President's agenda, which is really about growth, about energy capacity, about making sure that we have enough resources to grow and ensure that we're meeting all the demands of the future. Given how much of the development and economic benefits from the clean energy sector have happened in Republican districts, I think it was a disappointment to a lot of folks in the sector to not see any of those Republicans who had signed letters of support for the credits actually stand up. What do you make of that? It seems like that indicates soft support for the tax credits given the other hard choices they have to make. The reality is America has built a thriving storage and solar industry, which is powering over 300,000 jobs. We now have 330 U.S.-based manufacturing facilities and $285 billion of investments. So yes, to your point, there are a lot of reasons for folks to support this. There was strong support in the House, there have been strong supporters and statements in the Senate. This was middle-of-the-night legislation and resolving of party differences. And I feel very clear that a lot of those leaders in the House are still going to be working very hard ultimately to land us in a place that makes sense. The process is rarely, in my experience, clean, straightforward and simple. On the Senate side, we have four fairly prominent Republican senators who have signed a letter in support of keeping the clean energy tax credits. What makes you think that those senators would be more inclined to follow through on that versus what we saw happen in the House? The language as written now would have dramatic impacts in a lot of states that are really important to Republican Senate leadership. And I think the Senate is known for historically really working hard to strike that balance of what ultimately makes sense for Americans. I think they're very sensitive to not doing dramatic rug pulls out from under industry. So, as things work through the process and people start to stare at the stark realities of moving in such a knee-jerk fashion, I think you'll see more and more really start to focus on, 'How do we land this in a way that is not so disruptive to the American economy and so disruptive to the American energy independence agenda?' Many are very concerned about this issue of capacity. At Sunrun, we're really America's storage company. We're bringing on the equivalent of a nuclear power plant a year in terms of dispatchable energy capacity because we are leaning in so hard to storage. My experience would suggest—and my conversations would suggest—that their job is to land in a place that is not so highly disruptive to the economies of the very states that they all go home to. And what do you say to the critics of the tax credits who argue that your business, your industry, should be able to compete without the subsidies? What's really important is we're deploying way newer technology. So, we're using the tax structure to accelerate the adoption of storage, which from a mass market perspective has really only been around for a couple of years. It's really important to remember that the tax structure for us, for the work we're doing is not, it's not about supporting a technology that has been around for 15 or 20 years, it's actually supporting innovation around technology As a former utility executive, I care deeply about America having enough energy capacity. I'm all in on nuclear, on all these resources that we need. But the reality is, they're really hard to build and they take a lot of time. So, we can scale fast with these [storage battery] technologies. I think as people understand that it opens up a different perspective. On top of that, I would also say that what we've been advocating for is just a reasonable glide path. The languages as it sits now is sort of the opposite of fostering capitalism and a productive economy in the United States. You just don't do rug pulls, you come up with a structured way to allow capitalism and innovation to respond. On that topic, what might a glide path for phasing out the credits look like? I'll point back to what the House Ways and Means Committee did. I think things needed work from that bill, but you know, in, in the context of how I might structure a glide path, it would be maybe more extended than what they did. But it was very thoughtful. And what do you say to folks on the Hill in regard to the U.S. positioning itself to compete with China and other countries for this industry of the future? That's one of the many reasons why it's so important that we come up with a really smart, thoughtful glide path. Because we don't have a chance of winning the race with China if we don't scale at a faster clip in terms of our own energy capacity. Just look at what's happening with AI. We need to scale quickly, and this is a really strong way to contribute to that effort. This industry has contributed to America's energy dominance across the world and independence at home. A lot of onshoring has been done. Are there challenges going deep into the supply chain? Yes, as is true for a lot of products in the United States. With the appropriate glide path, you're incentivizing all of that innovation and capitalism to do that sort of last step in the onshoring. That really puts America in an incredibly strong place from an energy independence and manufacturing perspective.