Latin America, often overlooked in U.S. foreign policy discussions, has surprisingly taken center stage in recent months. Significant reductions to U.S. assistance, coupled with warnings to reclaim U.S. governance over the Panama Canal and potential military interventions in Mexico, have been pronounced highlights of the current administration. The deployment of substantial trade tariffs, impacting not only Mexico but also Canada and other global partners, echoes this new change of course. U.S. immigration and protection duties are being transferred, at times questionably, posing a whole new set of challenges for Latin American nations navigating their relationships with the U.S.
This administration’s interaction with the increasingly authoritative government of El Salvador is intricately intertwined with one of the United States’ most profound constitutional dilemmas in recent times. The pace of policy changes has been sensational, with over 135 executive orders being rolled out during the initial hundred-day period. These swift alterations have pixilated the landscape of U.S. foreign policy, eliciting profound change.
One of the most distinguishable transformations has been the considerable downsizing of U.S. foreign assistance. The proposed reconfiguration of the State Department, a key item on the agenda, would result in the abolishment of 132 agency bureaus. The impact is particularly hard-hitting within the fields of democratic progression and human rights protection.
The yearly human rights report, a mandatory requirement instated by Congress in 1975 under the amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act and broadened in 1979 to encompass all nations, is set to be ‘refined.’ It seems this refinement process will involve the elimination of sections related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Elements discussing governmental corruption, rights of specific groups such as women, the disabled, and the LGBTQI+ community, and governmental restriction of freedom of movement and peaceful gathering would be glaring absences in the newly ‘streamlined’ report.
Furthermore, the administration’s approach towards climate interventions, both domestically and globally, is undergoing a restructuring. This shift also encompasses the dismantling of initiatives dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Consequently, a vacuum has been created, leaving vulnerable communities bereft of protective measures.
In parallel, restrictive asylum policies have been enacted, closing off U.S. borders to those seeking refuge. Without adequate refugee admission programs, individuals requiring international protection find themselves in a state of distressing limbo.
Lastly, a clear animosity towards the United Nations and international law is a distinct trademark of the current administration’s modus operandi. These entities are perceived as unsanctioned restrictions on the United States’ sovereignty and power, further underlining the evolving nature of U.S. foreign policy under the current administration.