Trumpist Expansion in South America
Election results in Colombia and Peru combined form a new right wing that finds its ideas and methods, as well as an ally, in Washington
Trumpism is expanding across Latin America, and this ever growing — and in some countries seemingly unstoppable — phenomenon, is reshaping the continent from north to south, just like the ways of policy-making and governance. Abelardo de la Espriella’s electoral victory in Colombia, at the same time as the return of Fujimorism to Peru with the triumph of Keiko Fujimori — daughter of the autocrat who died in 2024 — cannot merely be read as the result of national dynamics. Both processes are part of a wider and deeper transformation: the consolidation in the region of a new right wing that finds not only an ally in Donald Trump but also a repertoire of ideas, methods and priorities.
The two election results have their own distinctive features. Colombia is exhausted after years of polarization, and its population is concerned about a lack of law and order, and economic stagnation. Peru has been in the throes of an institutional crisis for a decade. It would be a mistake to reduce these results to a mere importation of U.S. politics, but you would also be naïve to ignore the common thread, style and momentum of the moment, from Chile’s José Antonio Kast to El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele.
The promise of restoring order through the strengthening of the executive branch, mistrust and hostility toward institutional checks and balances, using cultural wars as a political tool, a review of rights that have been won during the last few decades, and the creation of a narrative that considers any disagreement as an obstacle to the will of the people. These are all part of the same ecosystem that is transcending borders. The next test will be the Brazilian elections in October, in which Flávio Bolsonaro, son of the former president, hopes to regain power for his family and the far right.
This is not just a change in direction ideologically: it is a different way of exercising power. Democracy is no longer understood as a balance between majorities, institutions and rights, and is now becoming an unlimited legitimization of whoever wins the election. During this transition, the courts, the independent press, regulatory agencies and civil society are transforming from vital components of system to enemies that need to be neutralized.
For the best part of the last four decades, Latin America has strengthened its institutions to prevent the political pendulum from calling into question its fundamental freedoms every time there was a change in government. Those conquests were never perfect or sufficient, but they allowed for very significant advances in equal rights, women’s rights, the protection of minorities, legal independence and accountability. None of these advances should be considered irreversible.
Latin America’s understanding with Washington could change one principle that has changed its relationship with the U.S.: the defense of its decision-making autonomy. It is nonsensical for leaders who assert their sovereignty to build their legitimacy on such an explicit alignment with the White House’s priorities. Ideological affinity between governments is legitimate. It is not a case of accepting that the region’s strategic decisions must adapt to the circumstantial interests of a foreign administration.
Venezuela offers a warning about the United States’ increasing influence on Latin American issues. The Jan. 3 attacks started a new phase based on Washington’s influence over Chavismo, its worst tradition of the Monroe doctrine and interference in its so-called backyard. Following the devastating earthquakes that occurred this week, the U.S. can exert another kind of influence, a philanthropic and supportive kind, thanks to the fantastic financial and logistical strength that it has at its disposal for rescue and reconstruction.
It is possible to avoid repeating mistakes from history, and conservative governments are not condemned to replicating mistakes made by Trumpism, but the rhetoric and the agenda of leaders like Espriella cause legitimate concern. Latin American societies have institutions capable of regulating those impulses. The debate is not about whether the region is shifting to the right or the left. The real issue is something else entirely: whether this shift will preserve these countries’ quality of democracy, the validity of their rights and their capacity to set their own course.
Latin America does not need Trump’s tutelage and neither does it need to adopt his model or his ways. It needs governments capable of responding to security, growth and demands for its well-being without sacrificing the democratic principles that it worked so hard to build. When politics stops coming up with its own answers and begins to look for instructions beyond its borders and from radical ideologies, sovereignty ends up being the first victim.
Trumpism is expanding across Latin America, and this ever growing — and in some countries seemingly unstoppable — phenomenon, is reshaping the continent from north to south, just like the ways of policy-making and governance. Abelardo de la Espriella’s electoral victory in Colombia, at the same time as the return of Fujimorism to Peru with the triumph of Keiko Fujimori — daughter of the autocrat who died in 2024 — cannot merely be read as the result of national dynamics. Both processes are part of a wider and deeper transformation: the consolidation in the region of a new right wing that finds not only an ally in Donald Trump but also a repertoire of ideas, methods and priorities.
The two election results have their own distinctive features. Colombia is exhausted after years of polarization, and its population is concerned about a lack of law and order, and economic stagnation. Peru has been in the throes of an institutional crisis for a decade. It would be a mistake to reduce these results to a mere importation of U.S. politics, but you would also be naïve to ignore the common thread, style and momentum of the moment, from Chile’s José Antonio Kast to El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele.
The promise of restoring order through the strengthening of the executive branch, mistrust and hostility toward institutional checks and balances, using cultural wars as a political tool, a review of rights that have been won during the last few decades, and the creation of a narrative that considers any disagreement as an obstacle to the will of the people. These are all part of the same ecosystem that is transcending borders. The next test will be the Brazilian elections in October, in which Flávio Bolsonaro, son of the former president, hopes to regain power for his family and the far right.
This is not just a change in direction ideologically: it is a different way of exercising power. Democracy is no longer understood as a balance between majorities, institutions and rights, and is now becoming an unlimited legitimization of whoever wins the election. During this transition, the courts, the independent press, regulatory agencies and civil society are transforming from vital components of system to enemies that need to be neutralized.
For the best part of the last four decades, Latin America has strengthened its institutions to prevent the political pendulum from calling into question its fundamental freedoms every time there was a change in government. Those conquests were never perfect or sufficient, but they allowed for very significant advances in equal rights, women’s rights, the protection of minorities, legal independence and accountability. None of these advances should be considered irreversible.
Latin America’s understanding with Washington could change one principle that has changed its relationship with the U.S.: the defense of its decision-making autonomy. It is nonsensical for leaders who assert their sovereignty to build their legitimacy on such an explicit alignment with the White House’s priorities. Ideological affinity between governments is legitimate. It is not a case of accepting that the region’s strategic decisions must adapt to the circumstantial interests of a foreign administration.
Venezuela offers a warning about the United States’ increasing influence on Latin American issues. The Jan. 3 attacks started a new phase based on Washington’s influence over Chavismo, its worst tradition of the Monroe doctrine and interference in its so-called backyard. Following the devastating earthquakes that occurred this week, the U.S. can exert another kind of influence, a philanthropic and supportive kind, thanks to the fantastic financial and logistical strength that it has at its disposal for rescue and reconstruction.
It is possible to avoid repeating mistakes from history, and conservative governments are not condemned to replicating mistakes made by Trumpism, but the rhetoric and the agenda of leaders like Espriella cause legitimate concern. Latin American societies have institutions capable of regulating those impulses. The debate is not about whether the region is shifting to the right or the left. The real issue is something else entirely: whether this shift will preserve these countries’ quality of democracy, the validity of their rights and their capacity to set their own course.
Latin America does not need Trump’s tutelage and neither does it need to adopt his model or his ways. It needs governments capable of responding to security, growth and demands for its well-being without sacrificing the democratic principles that it worked so hard to build. When politics stops coming up with its own answers and begins to look for instructions beyond its borders and from radical ideologies, sovereignty ends up being the first victim.
Previous article![]( "Trump: Even Pardons Are Becoming Big Business")