By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed harsh criticism of Canada’s anti-tariff advertisement, labeling it “psy-ops” and a hostile act. Conversely, Bessent defended the U.S.’s $20 billion currency swap with Argentina, which has faced criticism. Bessent clarified that the swap is not a bailout and supports a U.S. ally, aiming to prevent instability and the rise of another “failed state.” Despite the intervention, the peso has continued to decline, leading to concerns about Argentina’s ability to repay the U.S.
Read the original article here
The core of the matter here is the assertion that rescuing Argentina, even if it benefits certain financial interests, still somehow qualifies as “America First” policy because it involves helping an ally. This claim is immediately met with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially considering the casual application of the term “ally” and the potential motivations behind such a move. The argument suggests that the US is being taken for a ride, playing into a narrative of lies, gaslighting, and misinformation to maintain the illusion of truth.
The definition of “ally” quickly becomes a sticking point. While many would immediately point to formal treaties and shared defense agreements as a standard, the critique rightly questions whether Argentina fits this bill. It’s pointed out that the United States has a far stronger and more established alliance with Canada, a nation with whom it shares a bi-national military command and a deep history of cooperation. The fact that this established ally may face the threat of annexation is also a point made in the discussion. The contrast between these two relationships exposes the flexibility of the term “ally” and how it is applied based on the political context.
The criticisms then expand, touching on the supposed mental gymnastics required to reconcile seemingly contradictory actions. This includes contrasting the act of supposedly helping an ally with the prioritization of domestic issues and the withholding of support for American citizens. The discussion quickly shifts into broader criticisms of the former administration’s trade and tariff policies. There is the suggestion that tariffs are primarily implemented to address trade imbalances or protect domestic industries, and are used sometimes as a form of economic sanction. There is a critique that tariffs are impulsively implemented and not particularly strategic. The argument is made that tariff revenue is being used to make it look like the policies are working. The critique then argues that these revenue gains are outweighed by the damage that the tariffs inflict on American businesses, workers, and consumers.
The article explores the potential for a “new gilded age,” where cronyism and self-enrichment are rampant. This casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of any claims of “populism” or “America First” when policy seems geared towards benefiting a select few. The idea that helping Argentina is an “America First” move while overlooking the needs of American citizens is called out as a blatant double standard. The situation is then presented as one where economic policies are strategically flawed, reckless, and politically motivated, with short-term revenue gains at the expense of long-term economic stability and international relations.
A central point of contention arises: why Argentina, and why now? The discussion points to potential ulterior motives, suggesting that the “rescue” is about bailing out wealthy friends who have invested in Argentina. This adds another layer of skepticism, suggesting that the definition of “ally” is being manipulated to serve specific interests. The former administration’s actions and rhetoric are seen as contradictory, especially given previous policies that damaged relations with traditional allies like Canada and Europe. The inconsistency in how alliances are viewed and treated further calls into question the sincerity of the “America First” approach.
The article highlights the absurdity of the situation. The former administration’s policies, described as chaotic and self-serving, further undermine any claim that these actions are in the best interests of the United States. The critique extends to the political motivations behind these policies and how they are designed to appeal to a specific base by making them “insanely stupid”. In the end, the article paints a picture of a political environment where words are easily twisted, alliances are redefined based on personal preferences, and economic policies are implemented for the benefit of a select few, all while claiming the mantle of “America First.”