Trump’s Silhouette over Latin America

Felipe Fernandez and Larissa de Melo

While many U.S. presidents have left a lasting mark on Latin America, none compare to the deep, dark silhouette made by the current president, whose actions will impact the region for years to come. At the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2025, President Donald Trump delivered a speech that reflected his signature “America first” worldview, one grounded in nationalism, protectionism, and unilateralism. The UNGA address is one of the few times where a president can address not only their citizens but the whole world. It is a powerful source to understand how U.S. foreign policy and power are projected internationally, especially in Latin America. While the address focused on US sovereignty and global strength, its tone and policy implications sent a clear message to Latin America, cooperation with the US would come on their terms. His remarks on nationalism and “America First” reshaped not only U.S policy but also how countries like Venezuela define themselves in opposition to it. Venezuela´s fight for sovereignty has grown from political defiance to a statement of identity, shaping what is now a direct attack on Trump’s aggressive plans. Donald Trump’s address positioned him as the restorer of American greatness, taking credit for peace and prosperity beyond the United States, claiming he’s ended over 7 wars, portraying his presidency as a “Golden Age”. He marks himself as the strength and backbone of American superiority while framing immigration and growing socialism as the world’s greatest threats. The “America First” movement, which places U.S. interests above all others, echoes the Monroe Doctrine, the historic policy of U.S. protectionism disguised as the defense of democracy. Trump directly sets Venezuela’s president, Maduro, as the antagonist of his worldview. Stating he is spreading a socialist regime, defying U.S. authority, and setting Latin America back. By rejecting US dominance and aligning with countries that are against Western hegemony, Venezuela pushes against all foreign dominance and Western supremacy. For many Latin American nations, Trump’s rhetorical tonereinforced an unequal power dynamic that has shaped hemispheric relations. His points on migration, trade, climate change, and security reveal a point of view that prioritizes US interests at the expense of other regional development and collaboration. What Trump aims to set in motion affects all of Latin America politically, economically, and diplomatically, and it risks deepening existing inequalities across the Western Hemisphere.

Yvan Gils, the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs and representative at the UN General Assembly, makes strong claims, calling for a new multipolar world and praising competing powers like BRICS. All these passive attacks led Trump to call Venezuela an anti-US state run by a socialist dictator, treating it as a region in need of reform for its instability. Along with this, Trump’s speech isolates Venezuela, putting maximum pressure on how it will act towards its enemies after Venezuela’s aim to strengthen its ties with rival powers such as Russia and China. This directly impacts Latin American foreign policy as Venezuela’s relationship with the U.S. rivals could trigger Trump into setting sanctions that hurt them economically, redefining their diplomatic priorities. These signs show the separation of US and Venezuelan ties. “La criminal agresión que durante la última década han hecho contra Venezuela para apoderarse de sus riquezas naturales y producir un ‘cambio de régimen’” (The criminal aggression that over the last decade they have carried out against Venezuela in order to seize its natural riches and produce a ‘regime change.’), Gil claims that these new impositions are against their freedom and completely go against Trump’s own need for democracy and peace.

The pressure put on Venezuela derives from the narrative created by Trump, presenting Maduro as a dictator who is out for democracy. He supports Juan Guaido, the former president of Venezuela and the direct opposition of Maduro as the “legitimate” president, which symbolizes the act of regime change. Trump also used sanctions and diplomatic isolation under the banner of freedom and democracy to impose difficulties on Venezuela’s economy to thrive underMaduro’s presidency. Based on Gil’s speech, the counter-narrative is that the real aggressor is the US. Las 1.042 sanciones que se aplican de manera criminal contra nuestra industria petrolera y los sectores productivos de la nación, así como varias incursiones mercenarias.” (The 1,042 sanctions that apply criminally against our oil industry and the nation’s productive sectors, as well as several mercenary incursions.) As he claims, these coercive sanctions were put in place to paralyze the economy. He calls this a criminal aggression meant to steal Venezuela’s natural wealth, such as oil, gas, and gold, calling them illegal and immoral and violating the UN Charter article 16. This maximum pressure campaign didn’t just target Maduro, it reshaped their entire diplomatic identity around resistance. However, instead of submission, the sanctions fueled nationalism and justified Maduro’s anti-imperialism stance, reframing survival as a moral defense of sovereignty. This sanction war fuels the diplomatic consequences Venezuela will have to face by going against US dominance, as it crippled oil exports, led to hyperinflation, and caused a humanitarian crisis. However, Maduro turned this around and used it as a way to blame the US for domestic collapse and the economic problems that Venezuela was already facing, reinforcing anti-Western sentiment. There were various diplomatic consequences to this, as these sanctions isolated Venezuela from Western markets and pushed it closer to rival powers such as Russia, China, and Iran. Gil directly praised Xi Jinping and Putin, saying Venezuela stands with the noble Russian people. This solidified Venezuela’s roles within the multipolar bloc and BRICS, symbolizing resistance to US hegemony.

Venezuela and the United States’ competing visions of democracy also add to the changes Trump plans on making in the country. Trump frames the U.S. as the defender of democracy against a socialist tyranny, claiming his government “stands with the Venezuelan people” and not the regime. Venezuela frames its socialism as the true democracy of the people, validated through repeated elections and mass participation. El pueblo ratificó en múltiples eventos electorales… el proyecto histórico de emancipación de Venezuela.” (The people ratified inmultiple electoral events… the historic project of emancipation of Venezuela.) Gil also claims that the US fabricates lies to justify military aggression. A comparison between both speeches can be made as both use the language of freedom and democracy, but with opposing meanings. Trump’s democracy is pro-western, meaning a capitalist and free market, while Venezuela’s democracy is a self-determination, anti-imperialist Bolivarian socialism. Both parties claim moral legitimacy while manipulating the democratic ideal to justify their agendas.

Venezuela directly rejects the idea of Trump having an impact on its domestic and foreign policies by removing the metaphor of a silhouette. Venezuela presents itself as a part of a new multipolar world that rejects Western dominance. They began openly supporting BRICS, framing it as an alternative to the US-led system that had been active for ages. As a consequence, Trump’s nationalist, isolationist stance, shown in his withdrawals and reduction in UN engagement, is weakening the US global influence. In return, Latin America, which is tired of depending on U.S. sanctions, began expanding its alliances, and Venezuela, in particular, has become a strong symbol of dependency to defiance.

Additionally, the Bolivarian identity mentioned in Yvan Gil’s speech shows the return of anti-imperialism in Latin America. Gil’s motion towards Simon Bolivar uses the once revolutionary ideology that showed Venezuela’s resistance. “Nos enseñó Bolívar: no permitiré que se ultraje ni desprecie al gobierno y los derechos de Venezuela.” (Bolívar taught us: he will not allow anyone to be outraged or despise the government and the rights of Venezuela.) Bolivar’s image links historical colonialism to modern US imperialism; it shows how national pride can become a tool for legitimacy in global politics. By appealing to Bolivar, Venezuela connects its sovereignty to regional identity. It also contrasts how Trump celebrates American nationalism. Venezuela celebrates Latin American nationalism as liberation, while Trump sees it as global leadership. Both have patriotic emotion, but for opposite ends.

Now, going back to the rest of Latin America, Trump’s speech at the UN highlights his administration’s hardline approach to immigration, warning that those who enter the US illegally would face jail or deportation. This statement extends far beyond domestic policy; it forms how the US engages with Latin American countries. Countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras are urged or pressured to act as filler zones for US migration control, re-directing resources away from domestic needs. Return and deportation policies force Latin American governments to manage large populations of displaced citizens without adequate reintegration support. Families depending on remittances from relatives in the US face economic strain if migration channels are restricted. The dehumanizing tone toward Latin American migrants deepens stigma and racial tension, damaging cultural and diplomatic relations across the region.

Furthermore, In his speech, Trump defended his use of tariffs as “a defense mechanism” and hinted that similar strategies would apply to hemispheric trade. For Latin America, a region deeply linked to the US market, this approach poses serious risks. Tariffs and unpredictable trade systems undermine Latin American exports, particularly in agriculture, manufacturing, and raw materials. Economic uncertainty discourages foreign investment in Latin American countries that depend on US trade stability. Smaller economies, such as those in Central America and the Caribbean, face disproportionate harm because they lack diversified markets. Trump’s framing of trade as a “zero sum contest” reduces incentives for regional economic cooperation and mutual growth.

Trump’s distaste for renewable energy and international climate agreements directly contradicts Latin America’s growing focus on sustainability and environmental protection. Weak US commitment to climate finances means less resources for Latin American nations fighting deforestation, droughts, and natural disasters. Undermining global climate cooperation discourages the transition to renewable energy across the region. US withdrawals from environmental partnerships emboldens extractive industries in Latin America, threatening ecosystems and indigenous territories. For vulnerable nations like those in the Caribbean, which face rising sea levels, the lack of US climate leadership represents an existential risk.

The naming of Latin American gangs and cartels as “terrorist organizations” and his statement to utilize US military power against them lights a fire to the era of interventionist foreign policy in the region. Expands reasoning for potential US military operations in Latin American territories, undermining their national sovereignty. Fuels local governments to adopt militarized approaches to drug and gang violence, often worsening human rights abuses. Oversimplifies complex social problems like poverty, inequality, and corruption by framing them as purely security issues. Finally, it creates tension between the US and Latin American governments, looking to handle these challenges through social and economic reforms.

Ultimately, Trump’s rhetoric and policies have intensified old tensions between US dominance and Latin American sovereignty. His “America first” ideals cast a long shadow, reviving anti-imperialist discourse and pushing countries like Venezuela into alliances with their rivals. The more Trump fights for the defense of democracy, the further Latin America demands the right to defend itself. By attacking climate initiatives, militarizing regional issues, and stigmatizing migration, Trump’s speech risks deepening divisions across the Americas. For Latin America, the consequences are not only political but deeply human, less opportunities for cooperation, greater vulnerability to global crises, and reinforcement of old patterns of dependency and inequality.