Connect with us

America

The economic mind of Trumpism — 1: Stephen Miran and his dollar devaluation plan

Published

on

US President Donald Trump’s decision to initiate a trade war and impose tariffs impacting the global economy prompted accusations of “irrational economic policies”—a critique often heard in Turkey.

According to this perspective, Trump was perceived as a reckless autocrat imposing tariffs out of sheer ignorance. Alternatively, as renowned “new Keynesian” economist Paul Krugman stated, Trump was “crazy” regarding trade, and his “malignant stupidity” threatened the global economy.

This analysis does not attribute vast knowledge or profound wisdom to Trump, as subsequent points will clarify. Furthermore, the method for determining the tariffs has been described as somewhat “childish.” Additionally, this series will later delve into significant objections to “Trumponomics” and its inherent contradictions.

However, certain complexities may lie beyond Trump’s personal grasp, necessitating his team of advisors. If not a mad autocrat, perhaps Trump resembles an uninformed elephant in a china shop—useful, in this view, precisely for his capacity to disrupt the status quo.

Consequently, there are indications suggesting some underlying “intelligence” behind events like the rapid evaporation of trillions of dollars from stock markets within a week. Historical parallels exist. In his memoirs, President Herbert Hoover recalled his Treasury Secretary during the Great Depression, Andrew Mellon, advising: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… [The Depression] will clean out the rot in the system. The high cost of living and the high level of living will fall. People will work harder and live more moral lives. Values will adjust and enterprising people will pick up the debris of less competent people.”

The White House summary accompanying the official announcement of global tariffs highlighted a familiar, ostensible policy rationale: the so-called globalization process, it argued, no longer served the interests of the US and American workers, particularly within the manufacturing sector. This justification aligned with efforts toward reshoring production and implementing domestic tax cuts.

This, naturally, represents the surface narrative. Delving deeper, three figures emerge as prominent sources of “economic wisdom” within Trump’s White House: Stephen Miran, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers; Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury; and Peter Navarro, Trade Representative.

This article focuses on a 41-page report authored by Miran—then a strategist at Hudson Bay Capital, a hedge fund managing $30 billion—published in November, shortly after Trump’s election.

In the memorandum, titled “Guidelines for Restructuring the Global Trading System,” Miran aimed to persuade “markets” of the feasibility of tariffs.

Miran began, “We may be on the verge of a generational shift in the international trade and financial systems,” noting that ‘reforming the global trading system’ and ‘the desire to put American industry on a fairer footing vis-à-vis the rest of the world’ had been a ‘consistent theme’ for Trump for decades.

“There is a way in which these policies can be implemented without significant negative consequences, but it is narrow,” the strategist stated, acknowledging the difficulty of the task.

But here the core argument surfaces: “Economic imbalances are rooted in an overvalued dollar that prevents international trade from stabilizing, and this overvaluation is driven by inelastic demand for reserve assets. As global GDP grows, financing reserve assets and the defense umbrella becomes increasingly burdensome for the United States, with the manufacturing and tradable sectors bearing the brunt of the costs.”

This overvaluation, according to the argument, renders US exports less competitive, cheapens imports, and consequently undermines American manufacturing—the fundamental points being made.

This assessment of the dollar, I should note, is more prevalent than commonly assumed, a point discussed recently with economist Radhika Desai. Furthermore, reports indicate that Vice President JD Vance shared a similar perspective, attributing the dollar’s overvaluation to its global reserve currency status.

As will be discussed, a consensus apparently exists between Miran and Bessent that tariffs alone are insufficient. Miran explicitly writes about desiring an “adjustment”—specifically, an exchange rate realignment between the dollar and foreign currencies: “While currency offsets can impede the harmonization of trade flows, they show that tariffs are ultimately financed by the tariff-subject country, whose real purchasing power and welfare are reduced, and the proceeds improve burden sharing to provide reserve assets.”

The implication is that the negative impacts of tariffs are offset because the burden shifts. According to Miran (who holds a Harvard PhD in economics), this mechanism would not harm the purchasing power of American consumers. Instead, as citizens of exporting nations targeted by US tariffs face reduced purchasing power due to currency shifts, their country effectively ‘pays’ the tariff burden, while the US Treasury gains the revenue.

Miran stated, “From a trade perspective,” the dollar’s overvaluation stems “‘largely because dollar assets function as the world’s reserve currency.’” This aligns with the argument attributed to JD Vance.

Since the US supplies the world with reserve assets, demand exists for the dollar and US Treasuries independent of trade balancing needs or the optimization of risk-adjusted returns. These reserve functions facilitate international trade and offer a vehicle for substantial savings pools, frequently held for “policy reasons” (like reserve or currency management, or by sovereign wealth funds) rather than purely for yield maximization.

Consequently, much of this reserve demand for dollars and US bonds is inelastic concerning economic or investment criteria. Miran provided an example: Treasury bonds purchased to guarantee trade between Micronesia and Polynesia are acquired irrespective of the US trade balance, recent employment data, or the relative yield of Treasuries compared to German Bunds [government bonds].

Such phenomena, the advisor noted, reflect what can be termed a “Triffin world,” named after Belgian economist Robert Triffin. In this framework, reserve assets constitute a form of global money supply. Demand for these assets is driven by global trade and savings levels, rather than the reserve-issuing country’s domestic trade balance or investment appeal.

Within this model, the US runs large current account deficits not primarily because it imports excessively, but rather because it must import sufficiently to issue the US government bonds needed to supply reserve assets and thereby facilitate global growth.

According to Miran, reserve currency status yields three significant consequences for the issuing nation: somewhat cheaper borrowing costs, a more expensive currency, and the capacity to leverage the financial system for security objectives.

This overvaluation, Miran argued, imposes a heavy burden on the American manufacturing sector while simultaneously benefiting the economy’s financialized sectors, primarily advantaging wealthier Americans. The hedge fund manager’s critique of the financialization trend characterizing the past 40 years of capitalism sounds almost left-leaning.

Miran further clarified that the issue involves a “response to a crisis.” During crises, the dollar’s reserve nature places additional strain on manufacturing and export sectors. The dollar typically appreciates during recessions due to its “safe” haven status, while other currencies tend to depreciate during economic downturns.

Consequently, when aggregate demand declines, the difficulties faced by export sectors are exacerbated by a sharp erosion of competitiveness. This dynamic helps explain why US manufacturing employment often falls sharply during recessions and struggles to recover substantially afterward.

However, a contradiction arises: President Trump reportedly valued the dollar’s reserve status and even threatened punitive action against countries, notably the BRICS group, that might reduce their reliance on the dollar. How can this tension be reconciled? Miran proposed “a set of policies to increase burden-sharing among trade and security partners.” He elaborated: “Instead of trying to end the use of the dollar as the global reserve currency, the Trump Administration could try to find ways to claw back some of the benefits that other countries derive from our reserve status. A redirection of aggregate demand from other countries to America, increased revenue to the US Treasury, or a combination of these could help America offset the rising cost of providing a reserve asset for a growing global economy. The Trump Administration is likely to increasingly intertwine trade policy and security policy, seeing the provision of reserve assets and the security umbrella as interdependent and approaching burden-sharing for them together.”

As mentioned earlier (paragraph 25), reserve currency status has three key elements. One is the capacity to control financial flows. According to Miran, the negative consequences (like diminished export capacity) were historically balanced by the advantages of US dominance over global finance. This financial control conferred a “geopolitical advantage,” allowing the US to pursue national security goals cost-effectively. The US provided a global defense shield for “liberal democracies,” receiving the benefits of reserve status in return. In essence, reserve status has long been interwoven with national security considerations.

Miran suggested that Trump was reacting to a perception that these arrangements had become burdensome for the US. “This connection helps explain why President Trump thinks other countries benefit from America in defense and trade at the same time: the defense umbrella and our trade deficits are linked through currency,” the consulting economist wrote. He further explained: “In Triffin’s world, this [global] arrangement becomes more difficult as the United States’ share of global GDP and military power shrinks. As the economic burdens on America increase, with global GDP outstripping American GDP, it becomes more difficult for America to finance global security because the current account deficit grows and our ability to produce equipment is undermined. The growing international deficit is a problem because of the increasing pressure on the American export sector and the resulting socio-economic problems.”

The US is either unable or unwilling to sustain the existing global arrangement and therefore seeks to alter it. This constitutes Miran’s first key point.

The US dollar functions as a primary reserve asset largely because America offers “stability, liquidity, market depth and the rule of law.” These attributes underpin the nation’s capacity to project power globally and to shape and defend the international order. This is Miran’s second key point.

The link between reserve currency status and national security is long-established. As the Trump administration sought to reshape the global trading system, these connections were expected to become even more salient. This represents the third key finding. Therefore, the situation entails more than simply a move toward economic isolation for the dollar and the US.

Both tariff and exchange rate policies, in this framework, aim to enhance the competitiveness of American manufacturing, thereby strengthening the industrial base and shifting aggregate demand and jobs from other countries to the US.

Miran emphasized that the goal was not to repatriate labor-intensive sectors like textiles from countries such as Bangladesh. Rather, the tariffs were intended to preserve American dominance in high-value-added industries, halt the further exodus of manufacturing, and create negotiating leverage. This leverage could be used to compel other countries to open their markets to American exports or to better protect American intellectual property rights. Key sectors linked to national security included semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.

Yet, the fundamental contradiction persists. Miran, however, expressed confidence in the Trump administration’s approach. Acknowledging the inherent tension, he wrote: “Despite the dollar’s weight on the US manufacturing sector, President Trump has emphasized the value he places on its status as the global reserve currency and threatened to punish countries that move away from it. I expect this tension to be resolved through policies that seek to preserve the dollar’s status but improve burden sharing with our trading partners. International trade policy will seek to recapture some of the benefits to trading partners of our reserve status and link this economic burden sharing to defense burden sharing. Although the effects of Triffin will have a negative impact on the manufacturing sector, there will be attempts to improve America’s position in the system without destroying it.”

Burden sharing: Pillar of restructuring

In his inaugural speech as Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Stephen Miran revisited the themes from his November report.

Miran elaborated on the specifics of burden sharing, arguing that other nations should shoulder a greater portion of the costs associated with the global “public goods” the US has historically provided.

Within the economic framework of Trumpism, as articulated by Miran, the United States was portrayed as a “sucker”—providing a global reserve currency and a worldwide defense umbrella without receiving adequate reciprocation from other nations.

“President Trump has made it clear that he will no longer tolerate other nations freeloading on our blood, sweat and tears, whether in the area of national security or trade,” President Miran said at the Hudson Institute.

He continued, “While it is true that the demand for the dollar has kept our borrowing rates low, it has also distorted foreign exchange markets. This process has imposed unnecessary burdens on our companies and workers, making their products and labor uncompetitive on the global stage.”

Miran acknowledged the benefits of financial hegemony but contended the associated burden on the US had become excessive. He argued that other nations invested in American assets and manipulated their currencies to gain export advantages. Furthermore, he attributed partial blame for the 2008 financial crisis to Beijing, asserting that China had fueled the preceding bubble by purchasing vast quantities of US mortgage-related debt.

Miran proposed five specific options for achieving burden-sharing:

First, other countries could accept tariffs on their exports to the US without retaliating, thereby providing revenue to the US Treasury to help finance global public goods.

Second, they could cease perceived unfair and harmful trade practices by opening their markets further and increasing purchases from America.

Third, they could increase their defense spending, including procurement from the US. Purchasing more US goods would theoretically ease the burden on American military personnel and create domestic jobs.

Fourth, foreign nations could increase investment in America, including building factories. Goods produced domestically would not be subject to the proposed tariffs.

Fifth, they could directly contribute to financing global public goods by “writing checks” to the US Treasury.

Miran concluded: “Burden sharing can ensure that the United States can continue to lead the free world for decades to come. This is an imperative not only for fairness, but also for viability. If we do not rebuild our manufacturing sector, we will struggle to provide the security we need for our safety and to support our financial markets. The world can still have the American defense umbrella and trade system, but it must start paying its fair share for them.”

Interpretation: The underlying message is that the entire world—all other capitalists included!—must participate in reconstructing the American economy. This, the argument implies, is necessary to break the deadlock in the global capitalist system, allowing the US to resume its role as a global ‘gendarme’ guaranteeing capital accumulation and protecting the interests of propertied classes internationally.

The subsequent article in this series will examine the perspective of Scott Bessent, identified here as Treasury Secretary.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

America

Israel looks to Latin America as Isaac Accords seek to expand regional partnerships

Published

24 hours ago

on

23/06/2026

By

As ties between Israel and Latin American countries continue to deepen, the newly launched Isaac Accords are emerging as a framework for expanding cooperation across the region.

The initiative formed the backdrop to a panel discussion on opportunities for Israel in the Western Hemisphere at the 2026 JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem on Monday.

The panel, titled “The Coming Isaac Accords: Israel and Latin America,” brought together diplomats and regional experts to discuss developments that could encourage participation in the Isaac Accords, the strategic framework announced in April by Argentine President Javier Milei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during Milei’s visit to Israel.

Moderated by JNS correspondent Etgar Lefkovits, the discussion featured Panama’s Ambassador to Israel Ezra Cohen, former US Ambassador to Costa Rica Fitzgerald Haney, and Leah Soibel, founder and CEO of Fuente Latina, which provides Middle East news coverage to Spanish-language media outlets.

Soibel said:

“What we need to understand is that the Isaac Accords have an impact that extends far beyond diplomacy. Twenty percent of the US population is Hispanic. By 2050, that figure is expected to reach 30% of the population. This is the demographic group with the lowest levels of antisemitic sentiment.”

The panel also celebrated the victory of pro-US and pro-Israel candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, who defeated his left-wing rival in Colombia’s presidential election on Sunday.

De La Espriella had made the restoration of relations with Israel and the relocation of his country’s embassy to Jerusalem central elements of his campaign platform.

Cohen said that when he looks at a map of Latin America, only four countries are currently governed by left-wing, anti-Israel administrations.

Referring to an earlier panel discussing what participants described as a bleak future for Jews in Europe, Cohen remarked: “When one window closes, another opens. Come to Latin America.”

Haney argued that “Israel’s friends keep winning” and predicted that “we are going to see a lot more positive developments coming out of Latin America.”

He said a colleague in Colombia had sent him a text message promising: “On August 7 at 5 p.m., we will restore relations with Israel.”

Haney noted that this was the date and time when Colombia’s new president is scheduled to take office and predicted that another announcement regarding the relocation of Colombia’s embassy to Jerusalem would follow.

He described Colombia as the latest in a series of Latin American countries turning toward Israel in pursuit of “shared values, shared prosperity and shared security.”

Haney also said that the Israel Allies Foundation, a pro-Israel advocacy group that works with lawmakers, would bring together representatives from 11 legislative bodies across Latin America in Buenos Aires over the weekend to sign a joint declaration of principles.

He noted that the organisation had successfully worked with Brazil’s legislature despite the position of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whom he described as anti-Israel.

According to Haney, Brazil’s legislature has developed a plan to deepen relations with Israel over the next nine months.

Soibel said that 12 Latin American countries had renewed or strengthened their friendships with Israel and that interest in Israel among Spanish-language content creators, influencers and journalists continues to grow. Her organisation has brought 300 non-Jewish Hispanic journalists to Israel.

The panel also highlighted the launch of a Panama-based Spanish-language edition of JNS. Soibel said the work of pro-Israel organisations remains vital because so few such groups operate in the region, while, in her words, “Iran, Qatar and Hezbollah are conducting propaganda campaigns in Spanish throughout Latin America.”

She continued:

“You could probably count on one hand, perhaps two, the number of organisations and leaders operating across the Spanish-speaking world. That makes this work extraordinarily strategic. Its impact is enormous. Israel and the Jewish people should invest more. There is a large Hispanic-Israeli population in Israel, and many of them were victims of the October 7 attacks. We have stories to tell. What we need now is investment and distribution channels to spread those messages and information.”

The panel concluded on an optimistic note, with participants expressing confidence that Latin America will become an increasingly important pillar of Israel’s global diplomatic strategy in the years ahead.

Milei and Netanyahu launch new accord

Argentine President Javier Milei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the launch of the Isaac Accords last Saturday.

The initiative establishes a new strategic framework aimed at strengthening cooperation among Argentina, Israel and like-minded partners across the Western Hemisphere, described as “the descendants of Isaac and nations rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition,” in defence of freedom and democracy and in the fight against terrorism, antisemitism and drug trafficking.

Participating countries will seek to strengthen coordination against what the agreement describes as terrorist organisations, with particular emphasis on “Iran’s efforts to expand terrorist networks and operational presence throughout the Western Hemisphere.”

The initiative also seeks to promote coordination and alignment in international forums while creating a framework for expanded cooperation in innovation, technology, trade and economic openness.

Speaking alongside Netanyahu at a joint press conference, Milei said:

“We expressed our unwavering support for the United States and Israel in their struggle against terrorism and the Iranian regime, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because our countries are united through shared suffering.”

Milei referred to the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish community centre.

Although Argentine courts have attributed both attacks to Iran, Tehran has consistently denied any involvement.

Netanyahu praised the Argentine leader for demonstrating what he called “moral clarity” by standing with Israel and said he hoped other Latin American governments would join the Isaac Accords, which both leaders described as being inspired by the Abraham Accords.

The Abraham Accords, brokered by Washington in 2020, triggered a wave of normalisation in Arab-Israeli diplomatic relations.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee attended the signing ceremony and described Milei and Netanyahu as “President Trump’s two closest friends.”

Huckabee added: “I do not think there are two other world leaders whom our president respects as much and with whom he has such a personal relationship.”

During the visit, the two sides also announced the launch of the first direct commercial flights between Buenos Aires and Tel Aviv, scheduled to begin in November.

Milei said the new route would create an “unbreakable bond” between the two countries and reiterated his intention to relocate Argentina’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“As soon as circumstances permit, we once again reaffirm our commitment to moving the Argentine embassy to Jerusalem,” he said.

Continue Reading

America

Iran team leaves thank-you message in Los Angeles locker room after World Cup draw

Published

2 days ago

on

22/06/2026

By

Iran’s national football team left a message in its locker room at SoFi Stadium, thanking Los Angeles for its hospitality during the World Cup.

The players said they were leaving the city with honor after keeping their hopes of reaching the knockout stage alive with a 0-0 draw against Belgium.

In the handwritten note, published by the Iran Football Federation, the team wrote:

“From the ancient land of Persia thousands of years ago to the civilized Iran of today, the spirit of Iran remains alive and unshaken. Los Angeles, thank you for your hospitality. We arrived in Los Angeles with pride, competed with honor and leave with dignity.”

The note also thanked Iranian supporters who gave their “hearts, voices and souls” to the team throughout its two matches and concluded with a call for peace, respect and friendship among all nations.

Los Angeles hosted both of Iran’s Group G matches, while the team returned to its training base in Tijuana between games.

Iran has been based in Tijuana throughout the tournament and has had to travel back and forth to the United States for matches because of restrictions related to its stay in the country. Entry bans were also imposed on some members of the national team’s coaching staff and officials.

US authorities said the team’s travel arrangements remain under review, while discussions continue over the possible easing of some restrictions.

Iran head coach Emir Ghalenoei has repeatedly criticized the travel restrictions, saying his squad has faced challenges that no other team in the tournament has been required to endure.

After drawing 2-2 with New Zealand in its opening match at SoFi Stadium, Iran will play its final Group G match against Egypt in Seattle.

Continue Reading

America

Colombia’s de la Espriella claims narrow presidential victory in runoff election

Published

2 days ago

on

22/06/2026

By

The first results from Colombia’s presidential runoff election showed that right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, backed by Donald Trump, had narrowly won the vote.

The victory of de la Espriella, who has no prior political experience, signals a fundamental shift in the government’s approach to tackling the country’s long-running internal armed conflict and rising violence.

Throughout the campaign, de la Espriella pledged to intensify military pressure on illegal armed groups, drug trafficking networks and criminal organizations. He succeeded in defeating left-wing candidate Iván Cepeda, a close ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro.

Speaking after the initial results were released, de la Espriella said: “Today marks the beginning of a new era for our country. This era is built on the free and democratic will of millions of citizens who chose to believe in a great, secure, prosperous Colombia full of opportunities.”

Cepeda says he will await official results

According to the preliminary count, with more than 99% of ballots tallied in the runoff election, de la Espriella secured approximately 49.7% of the vote, while Cepeda received 48.7%.

Cepeda, who has not yet conceded defeat, said the preliminary results were neither official nor binding.

“When the official count is completed, the final results are known and the necessary verification procedures are finished, we will recognize the official outcome produced by that process,” Cepeda said.

Reuters reported that the verification process showed very little variation from the preliminary counts recorded during the first round of voting on May 31.

De la Espriella, who grew up in Colombia’s Caribbean region, drew particularly strong support from that part of the country. Addressing a large crowd gathered in the coastal city of Barranquilla after the first results emerged, de la Espriella, who has adopted the nickname “El Tigre” (The Tiger), declared: “Tonight is the beginning of a new story for the nation. Tonight a new era begins, a change of order begins.”

He said he would govern for all Colombians, including those who voted for his opponent, and pledged loyalty to and protection of Colombia’s 1991 constitution.

At celebrations in Barranquilla, supporters wore Colombia’s yellow national football jersey and waved Colombian flags.

With images of de la Espriella projected behind the stage, supporters chanted “Stand firm for the homeland” and “Petro out!” as fireworks lit the sky. Some supporters wore hats bearing the slogan “Make Colombia Great Again,” echoing those worn by supporters of US President Donald Trump.

Trump reacted to the results in a Truth Social post, writing: “BIG won!”

One supporter, Patricia, told reporters: “We are tired of the murders in this country and of this government’s bureaucracy. Now we finally have a president from the coastal region.”

Another supporter said: “We are proud of the Tiger. We hope he transforms the country and, above all, creates a new nation where we will have jobs and greater security.”

Supporters of Cepeda, who narrowly lost the election, also voiced concerns on the streets of Barranquilla.

Catalina La Grande, a student and activist who supports Cepeda, told the BBC: “There is a visible sense of unease in the air. Such a narrow margin worries us because it reflects how divided the country is and the enormous challenges we face in defending democracy, peace and human rights.”

Another young voter backing Cepeda, Maria, said the results showed a divided country but noted that the public had remained peaceful.

“Given the level of polarization we are experiencing, the absence of violence in the streets is a positive development,” she said.

The sharp divisions between the candidates have fueled concerns that unrest could emerge if some opposition groups refuse to accept the outcome.

Late on Sunday night, clashes were reported between protesters and police in Cali, Colombia’s third-largest city. Demonstrators reportedly burned US flags, while police used tear gas to disperse large crowds angered by de la Espriella’s victory.

President Gustavo Petro is also reported to be considering challenging the result. In a post on X, Petro said that based on the preliminary count, “no one can be declared president” and alleged that the security of some polling stations had been compromised. He called for an audit of the voting software but provided no evidence to support the claims.

Who is Abelardo de la Espriella?

De la Espriella, who has no political background, is a lawyer and businessman. During his legal career, he represented clients including Alex Saab, an ally of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro who has faced money laundering charges in the US, and David Murcia Guzman, one of Colombia’s most notorious fraudsters.

De la Espriella says he handled those cases in his capacity as a defense attorney.

Often compared to El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele because of his security policies and distinctive beard, de la Espriella and his supporters frequently wear Colombia’s national football jersey at rallies and on social media. Critics accuse him of politicizing the national team shirt.

He is also known for regularly addressing campaign crowds from behind bulletproof glass panels.

Colombia’s internal armed conflict has persisted for decades, but violence has intensified in recent years. Armed groups and criminal organizations, including dissident factions of the FARC, the ELN and the Clan del Golfo, have doubled their membership over the past five years.

Competition for control of lucrative cocaine trafficking routes and illegal mining operations has further escalated the violence. Fighting along the Colombia-Venezuela border last year displaced tens of thousands of people. Cocaine production in the world’s largest cocaine-producing country has reached record levels.

Critics of President Petro argue that his “total peace” strategy, which prioritizes negotiations with armed groups, has failed, claiming that such groups have used ceasefire arrangements to expand their territorial control and influence.

De la Espriella has pledged to cancel all negotiations with illegal armed groups and increase military pressure to restore order.

As part of that agenda, he has promised closer cooperation with the US, the construction of massive prisons in Colombia’s forests, a smaller state apparatus and reforms to the healthcare system.

Having lived and worked in Miami for many years, de la Espriella has held US citizenship since 2023. During the election campaign, he received support from Donald Trump, who said de la Espriella would “stop illegal migration, fight crime and drugs, and restore law and order.”

Before the election, Trump also said de la Espriella would feel “the full support and strength of the United States” behind him.

Although Colombia has historically been one of Washington’s closest allies in the region, relations have become strained in recent years due to sharp disagreements between President Trump and President Petro over migration policy, tariffs and military intervention in Latin America.

De la Espriella’s election also aligns with a broader trend across Latin America, where security concerns have pushed politics to the right. His victory was welcomed by other conservative leaders across the region.

Argentine President Javier Milei said Colombians had “chosen the path of economic freedom, prosperity and uncompromising security” and had declared that enough was enough to transnational organized crime and drug trafficking.

Chile’s José Antonio Kast said: “A new era of freedom is beginning for Colombia, one that will allow the country to regain security and prosperity.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey