Since Donald Trump came to power in his second term, under promises to reposition the United States globally through a series of measures such as the so-called economic war, he has also sought to reposition the northern giant strategically and geopolitically, trying to restore the United States’ influence in strategic areas around the world.

When it comes to South America, the United States needs to strengthen its geopolitical influence in South America through a combination of strategies that promote cooperation, economic development, and regional stability in favor of the northern country. The challenge for the United States is to stem China’s growing influence in the region, along with the persistence of problems such as inequality, insecurity, and corruption, which hamper the United States’ ability to maintain its traditional influence.

Key factors in the relationship with South America are its wealth of natural resources, including minerals and copper from Chile, oil from Venezuela, where, in my opinion, erratic policies are being unleashed while it is being established as a narco-regime, a bounty is being placed on Nicolás Maduro, Chevron licenses are being approved, and water reserves in Antarctica, making Latin America a region of great economic interest to the United States.

For this reason, the United States has viewed Latin America as a close sphere of influence and has intervened on occasion to ensure its stability and prevent the influence of rival powers. We recall the importance of the Panama Canal and its intervention in the late 1980s.

Always following the guidelines of the old Monroe Doctrine, a policy established in the 19th century that sought to prevent European intervention in Latin America and maintain US hegemony in the region, and currently, Chinese intervention.

The theoretical and conceptual debate over US hegemonic projection and the centrality of security issues would be evident both in the agenda of international relations theory itself and in the controversies surrounding the hegemonic and imperial status of the United States.

The US ethnocentrism exacerbated by Donald Trump in international relations theory, as Celestino del Arenal rightly argues, is itself a social construct of “American social science” rather than an objective truth.

The absolute hegemony that the theory of international relations developed in the United States has enjoyed until recently, imposing a political, economic, and social interpretation of international relations in universal terms, has been decisive in the social construction not only of the theory and discipline of International Relations with universal pretensions and vocations, but also of international reality itself.

In the current context, security would occupy a central place not only due to the scale, complexity, and global nature of uncertainties and risks, but also due to the re semanticization of the concept itself, which would eventually overwhelm its strategic, political, and military components, which until now had characterized its agenda.

One of the central axes of this strategy, as we have seen, is the commitment to bilateral agreements instead of traditional multilateral mega-trade agreements.

By abandoning multilateralism, Trump strengthens the United States’ dominant position in the Western Hemisphere, avoiding commitments in international arenas that could dilute its negotiating power.

This approach allows Washington to impose more advantageous conditions in each agreement and keep its regional partners within its sphere of influence, while minimizing its involvement in external conflicts unrelated to the continent.

Trump’s stance toward so-called anti-imperialist governments has been characterized by a tightening of sanctions and economic blockades, particularly against Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

During his first term, he implemented a policy of “maximum pressure” aimed at isolating and weakening these processes, consolidating a political and economic siege supported by key figures like Marco Rubio.

In contrast, Democratic administrations, such as Biden’s, have opted for a simulated “soft power” strategy that prioritizes dialogue and diplomacy with their satellite states.

However, this strategy continues to maintain elements of militarization and resource control, perpetuating the logic of subordination.