Harris or Trump: Which Is Better for Latin America?

A Harris victory, which represents continuity, would offer a more favorable scenario both economically and politically for US-Latin America relations.

By Victor Ferro* (lationoamerica21)

HAVANA TIMES – U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump had their first and only encounter during the debate on Tuesday, September 10. Among the many topics discussed—such as abortion, the economy and immigration policy—their foreign policy proposals were particularly significant. The key topics that sparked the most debate were the war in Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the crisis in Venezuela. If it weren’t for the latter and references to Mexico in the context of immigration, Latin America would have been almost absent from the U.S. presidential debate.

However, this doesn’t mean that both candidates—the Republican and the Democrat—don’t have an agenda for the region. Indeed, as an extension of their domestic programs and broader foreign policy visions, Harris and Trump offer very different approaches to Latin America, implying distinct scenarios for the region depending on the winner. This raises the question: which candidate would present a more favorable scenario for political and economic relations between the U.S. and Latin America?

In economic terms, a Kamala Harris victory might create a better outlook for Latin America than a Trump reelection for three main reasons. First, Trump’s trade policy, characterized by unilateralism and his famous “America First” slogan, could create challenges for trade flows with Latin American countries. This would affect both larger economies like Mexico, Colombia and Brazil—where the U.S. is the first or second most important trade partner—and smaller ones like El Salvador and Honduras. Trump’s protectionist and unilateral trade policy would particularly harm Central American countries, as nearly one-third of their exports are destined for the U.S. It would also negatively impact Mexico, where more than 80% of its exports depend on the U.S.

For Mexico, there are two concerns. First, a Harris victory would likely continue nearshoring efforts—the relocation of production activities, especially industrial production, to neighboring countries—promoted by the Biden administration, which has favored Mexico. In 2023, these policies helped Mexico become the U.S.’s top trading partner, surpassing China, its main economic rival. However, a Trump win could push for reshoring, which means bringing production back to U.S. soil, directly affecting Mexico. 

Second, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA in 2020 and was renegotiated during Trump’s presidency starting in 2017, is up for review in 2026. Although Kamala Harris voted against USMCA as a senator, she argued that her opposition was due to the agreement’s lack of environmental protection provisions, clarifying that she is not a protectionist Democrat. Trump, meanwhile, has already shown a tough trade stance toward Mexico, imposing temporary tariffs on Mexican steel and aluminum exports in 2018 and 2019 and threatening a 5% tariff on all Mexican products due to what he considered poor management of Mexican immigration policy.

Second, the scenario under Trump would be less favorable for Latin America due to his skepticism about the climate crisis. This stance could harm countries like Bolivia, Argentina and Chile, which rank first, second and fourth in terms of global lithium reserves, a key mineral for producing electric vehicle batteries. Trump’s lack of interest in fighting climate change could reduce U.S. demand for lithium, depriving these countries of exports that could drive new economic growth. On the other hand, Harris, as President of the Senate—a constitutional role of the U.S. Vice President—was instrumental in passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes provisions to promote electric vehicle production, implying greater lithium demand.

Third, Trump’s immigration policy would also pose an economic obstacle for some Latin American countries. The U.S. is the largest source of remittances for many countries in the region, particularly for Central American nations like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. Remittances sent by migrants from these three countries from the U.S. account for 23%, 21% and 16% of their respective GDPs, the Economist Intelligence Unit reports. Trump’s promised stricter immigration policies, which include increased border control, tougher refugee or asylum procedures and more aggressive deportations of undocumented immigrants, could significantly reduce remittance flows, affecting consumption and investment in these countries.

Politically, a Trump administration would also likely be less beneficial for Latin America for three reasons. First, due to his unilateral approach—contrasting with Biden and Harris’s global activism—Trump would have fewer qualms about using any means at the U.S. government’s disposal to achieve his objectives in the region. His policy toward left-wing authoritarian regimes in Latin America, such as Cuba and especially Venezuela, would be much more forceful and direct. Instruments like the Barbados Agreement, promoted by the Biden-Harris administration to facilitate minimally free elections between Maduro’s government and the Venezuelan opposition, would be sidelined in favor of multiplying economic sanctions. Additionally, mediation attempts like Brazil’s in the Venezuelan crisis, praised by the current administration, would likely lack Washington’s support under Trump, who would prefer unilateral action.

Second, Latin American governments ideologically aligned with Trump, such as Javier Milei’s in Argentina, wouldn’t be guaranteed benefits. A clear example is the relationship between Brazil and Trump’s government, under Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency. Despite Bolsonaro’s declared alignment with Washington, the U.S. suspended import quotas for Brazilian beef and only belatedly supported Brazil’s OECD membership in 2020.

Finally, under Trump, promoting democracy in the region would become less viable. While Harris upholds the Democratic Party’s traditional idealistic rhetoric in favor of democracy, Trump has not hesitated to praise authoritarian leaders in Europe, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, or Latin American figures without democratic commitments, like former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

In conclusion, a Harris victory, representing continuity, would offer a more favorable scenario both economically and politically for U.S.-Latin America relations. Trump’s unilateralism and rejection of a globalized order would hinder political dialogue and economic cooperation, complicating the maintenance of current trade relations and the creation of new opportunities.

*Sociologist from the University of São Paulo, Brazil. Member of the interuniversity research and studies group Observatorio do Regionalismo.

Read more opinion here on Havana Times.