The Trump administration’s threats to sharply reduce engagement in international bodies has intensified the Western Hemisphere’s limited policy coordination. The administration announced its intention to review participation in every international organization and made clear that it plans to cut funding, or even withdraw, from various organizations. This will reduce U.S. influence and several organizations are now on the financial edge.
Observers argue that extra-hemispheric powers—specifically China—will step in to fill the void. While China’s growing influence in Latin America cannot be ignored, its presence is not simply a response to U.S. disengagement but the result of years of sustained investment. China also engages in various regional bodies and forums and will continue to leverage these spaces to pursue its own ambitions in the region.
The reduction in U.S. engagement is an opportunity for China to step into the vacuum, but the impact should be understood as part of the broader web of regional frameworks that exist—including many that do not include, or were actively created to oppose, the United States.
Rising Tensions: Fragmentation and Ideological Competition
Inter-American organizations were initially created with two competing objectives; 1) promoting coordination and integration and 2) protecting the sovereignty of Latin American and Caribbean states—including from the United States. Given these prerogatives, regional coordination has never been so important. However, frustrations with the functioning of regional organizations, the view that some organizations are tools of U.S. imperialism, and efforts to secure a leadership role in regional affairs have led to the development of a cornucopia of overlapping regional mechanisms. These range from comprehensive deliberative bodies to more narrow organizations focused on key functional areas and from organizations with well-developed secretariats to “zombie” organizations, and free trade groupings.
Competing political visions have driven countries to create parallel institutions rather than strengthen existing ones. For instance, the belief that the United States had too much influence in the Organization of American States (OAS) led to the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2008. Nor is ideological fragmentation solely driven by the North-South divide, the Union of South American States (UNASUR)—once envisioned as a unifying platform for South America—began disintegrating in 2018. In its stead, right-wing leaders created the Forum for the Progress and Integration of South America (PROSUR).
Rather than facilitating coordination, this fragmented institutional landscape has created overlapping mandates, competing agendas, and tensions among member states—weakening the region’s ability to negotiate collectively.
The Unfunded Mandated?
Further complicating regional governance is that many organizations lack sufficient funding or institutionalization. Funding largely depends on member contributions, yet few countries are willing to shoulder the costs. Membership is often politically valuable, but when the bill arrives, enthusiasm wanes. This creates scenarios where the country contributing the most often feels entitled to shape the organization’s agenda, an action that can further undermine credibility.
The OAS illustrates this dynamic. The United States is its largest financial contributor, covering about 50% of the organization’s budget. At the last OAS General Assembly meeting, U.S. Undersecretary of State Christopher Landau noted that the United States was considering curtailing support for the OAS. Without U.S. funding, the OAS would face a severe fiscal shortfall, making it nearly impossible to sustain operations. This financial dependency also fuels the argument that U.S. priorities heavily influence the agenda.
At the same time, organizations that exclude the United States often lack institutionalization. For instance, not only does CELAC lack a secretariat, but its annual summit went on a three-year hiatus due to a lack of political will. While leaders continue to push for the creation of a secretariat, funding remains a key barrier.
This institutional maze and lack of financial resources leave Latin America and the Caribbean at a crossroads. On one hand, the number of organizations reflects the region’s ambition to deepen integration and strengthen its collective voice. On the other, persistent financial dependency, overlapping mandates, and ideological divides weaken their effectiveness and credibility.
Opening the Door to China
As the United States steps away from multilateralism and regional cooperation, this opens the door for China. However, regional cooperation should be understood beyond a new Cold War lens. Indeed, of the 45 regional organizations and bodies, the United States is only a member of 12 organizations and observer in three more.
While the United States limiting engagement in regional forums will dampen its influence, China already engages with regional organizations. In fact, China is a member or observer in nine regional organizations and forums within the Americas with clear signs of engagement with several other groups. To better navigate this fragmented regional system, China has also developed the China-CELAC Forum as its primary mechanism for regional multilateral engagement. China took advantage of U.S. disengagement to announce large investments in the region at the China-CELAC Ministerial. China is seizing the opening offered by the U.S. withdrawal while regional governance remains unwieldly.
Adapting to a Post-American Inter-American System
With the United States turning against multilateralism and given the complicated web of regional institutions that undermine their own effectiveness, Latin America and the Caribbean face a dual challenge—how to push for effective regional governance and how to fund this goal.
The hemispheric structures have allowed the region to constrain some of the worst impulses of great power politics and promoted cooperation in key areas. With U.S. funding for these organizations facing severe cuts, regional leaders must look to new funding sources. One way could be to streamline existing regional organizations and shift funding to key institutions.
As the global order evolves, Latin America and the Caribbean face the choice of succumbing to great power competition or leveraging the moment to strengthen regional integration. With organizations facing funding cuts and great powers turning away from multilateralism, leaders across the hemisphere—including in the United States—should reembrace the Bolivarian dream to best position the Americas for this new world.
Autor
Founder and CEO of Pan-American Strategic Advisors, a consulting firm and thought leadership platform focused on the Western Hemisphere. Member of Diplomatic Courier's World in 2050 Brain Trust.
Political scientist and advisor to Pan-American Strategic Advisors (PASA), specializing in Latin American governance, institutional development, and natural resource policies. She holds a master's degree in Latin American Studies from Georgetown University.
