The sudden realization by Trump that Latin America is a region that can be categorized as a narco- trafficking waste land is neither his own nor is it unprecedented. Such a narrative is seen being highlighted by the US at least once a decade with the mention of the Monroe Doctrine and terms like ‘America’s backyard’ thrown in for good measure.
This time around one should read Trump’s recent rhetoric about Latin America more as a security narrative hiding the real concern of the Chinese steadily gaining ground in the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region.
The US’ rhetoric focuses on drugs, gangs and narco-terrorism, but the operational thrust is to reassert coercive leverage across the region they have for long called their backyard. It is important to remember that the American psyche has never viewed anything west of Europe as something that did not automatically belong to the US and their constant intervention in the LAC region in the past has only strengthened their resolve of having complete control.
During his first term, Trump used sweeping sanctions on Venezuela’s state and financial sectors to exert maximum pressure. He decided to recognise and put his faith in Guido as the alternative President of the country instead of Maduro; a political movement that never gained ground.
Then in 2019 he issues an executive order which effectively froze the Venezuelan state under Maduro from the U.S. financial system and in 2020 the US Justice Department filed charges of narco – terrorism on Maduro put a price on Nicolás Maduro’s head that the US has increased periodically. In 2025 that bounty has increased to fifty million USD which is the highest since Osama.
Trump has used judiciary and the legal system to strengthen his next step which is the recategorization of cartels and certain gangs as terrorist actors. A change like this results in the unlocking of military and financial authorities to take necessary action.
In January this year, the White House order created a way to label international cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) or Specially Designated Global Terrorists, and subsequently the American administration has asserted the FTO status for groups like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua while toughening actions against MS-13 which already has a longstanding transnational criminal organization status at the US Treasury.
This renaming and use of the FTO status does the job of blurring the line between counter- crime and counter – terrorism. Which in turn gives the US not only the liberty to treat MS-13 gang members as criminals but also as terrorists opening up the pandoras box of counter- terrorism activities including asset freezes, extra territorial pressure, and the use of American force on Latin American land. It also gives US an opportunity to negotiate with the states with an upper hand.
The reaction from Latin American states, however, is not what Trump had hoped for; Trump had wanted to send proverbial chill down the spine of Latin American leaders hoping they would buckle under the American pressure. The reaction by LAC states actually underscores the limits of intimidation in Washington’s proverbial backyard.
For instance, in the first week of August 2025, as US announced Trump’s authorization of US using military options against cartels, Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico publicly and repeatedly opposed any U.S. troop presence on its soil with great vehemence. “There will be no invasion”, she said, while agreeing that concerns over bilateral security are legitimate and Mexico would cooperate with the US through other channels. President Sheinbaum was heard saying that Mexico was no place for American troops.
The outright dismissal of Trump’s rhetoric and possible action does highlight the loss of ground and credibility that the US has suffered in the past decade, which is almost directly proportional to the kind of hold that China has managed to manufacture for itself in the Latin American region, making intrinsic inroads into the economics and later politics of most countries in the LAC region.
This new paradigm would need to be studied by the US as it strategically, it’s also indicative to the US that to the region that Trump’s terrorism strategic game will not automatically manifest into permissive access for the American troops.
While these dynamics between US and the LAC unfold, the unmentioned player – China is continuously becoming a magnetics force in the region. It is a well-known fact that China has the world’s deepest pockets, and at the moment they are deeper than Trump’s.
It would not be incorrect to claim that in the past decade Beijing has become a central financier, buyer, and builder across Latin America, they have strengthened and deepened their links through Belt and Road projects, policy banks, and targeted Lined of Credit , not to mention scholarships to students, military exchange programmed, building critical infrastructure and also cultural infusion through Confucius Centers.
The data for 2025 shows records of not only BRI-related engagements and but also fresh multi-billion-dollar pledges to the region.
Trump’s decision to leave Biden’s approach of the carrot and adopt the stick stands no chance against free roads, hospitals, lines of credit. At the moment, Washington’s offer to Latin America is principally punitive sanctions, terrorist labels, asset freezes, prohibitions, in contrast, China’s is offering newer ports, power grids, EVs, and seemingly infinite Lines of credit.
Washington’s approach at the moment would turn LAC nations away from the US, thereby making it inevitable for the United States to cede further ground in markets, diplomatic engagements, and political alignment. This could result in the very situation that US is fighting against, where US can no longer establish control in the region.
The decision by the US would also lead to a security and governance paradox. Rebranding the cartels and MS-13 as terrorist organizations unlocks military and financial tools against them but also gives them prominence expanding their status and hardens them against sanctions and governance structures.
Sanctions on Venezuela decreased state revenues and limited sovereignty of the Venezuelan state which in turn translated to the growth of non-state actors (including Tren de Aragua) and them spilling over national borders. If the perception of US policies would be a collective punishment for perfectly innocent citizens, instead of a nuanced understanding of violence it could lead to aggravated resentment against the American state.
An emotion that would be partially founded on facts and partially exaggerated and exploited by domestic politics. This has the potential to metastasize into radicalization and opportunistic violence, which would result in absolutely the situation that the US is trying to avoid. This is also in complete contrast to the China’s apolitical approach giving an illusion of China’s disinterest in the inner workings of Latin American politics and policy.
It is important to note that historically, this rhetoric and policy is a pattern by the US rather than a departure from it. Since the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th-century articulation, U.S. has constantly been an intervening force in LAC. Guatemala (1954), the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and recurrent covert action and economic coercion across the Cold War have characterized US policy in the region.
The contemporary approach by the US is not far from it. The hemispheric policing first through economic sanctions and then through threat of military action as an attack on domestic politics and sovereignty is something that Latin America is well aware of.
It is clear now as mentioned earlier that this approach by the US is not about Latin America but about China. The competition between US and China and its proxy manifestation in the LAC region are reminiscent of the cold war and it is upon Latin America to play US against China for its own benefit if possible and for the US to change its tactics to better battle with a new and rich opponent without making LAC a battlefield.
Dr Aparaajita Pandey, is an Asst Professor in Dept of Defence and Strategy in Amity University, NOIDA and has a PhD in Latin American Studies from JNU. India