Trump’s “Blue Tsunami”: Israel alliance in crisis after midterms, but Latin America still under target
Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.
The midterms have dealt a heavy blow to US President Donald Trump and his MAGA (“Make America Great Again”) movement.
Democrats have gained ground in Congress, and specialists now speculate about whether Washington’s foreign policy will greatly shift for the remainder of Trump’s term.
Some observers expect tighter constraints on Latin America. AS/COA and Americas Quarterly analyses for example have argued that the setback complicates Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s agenda in the region - and could bring more congressional oversight.
Yet, in talks with G7 allies in France Rubio himself made it clear that Trump’s foreign policy will not change after the Republican losses. On this, Lee Schlenker of the Quincy Institute notes that ongoing hostilities in the Middle East are more likely to restrain any dramatic moves against Cuba than Democratic attempts to revoke the national emergency now justifying the oil blockade.
Even with possible limits on Cuba, hostile “neo-Monroeism”, as I describe it, will continue to advance across Latin America. Pressure campaigns against Brazil and other states are to remain central to the administration’s approach. Its agricultural rise has already drawn sharp responses, including tariffs that threaten its role as a food powerhouse.
Washington now treats the hemisphere (including Canada) as a strategic backyard, using terror labels, sanctions, judicial interference, and tariff threats to push back against pragmatic or “non-aligned” governments. Great power competition, the growing weight of BRICS, and energy interests should all keep fueling this policy.
Moreover, if the United States is to partially withdraw from distant theaters, focusing harder on the Western Hemisphere only makes strategic sense.
The Middle East itself in turn presents a quite different picture. US policy there has long been strongly supportive of Israel, to put it mildly, yet it now faces unprecedented scrutiny in the context of expanding conflicts and the ongoing campaign in Gaza, classified as a genocide the UN Human Rights Council.
Domestic backlash after the midterms is intense, and Israel’s international isolation has deepened. Former Israeli envoy Michael Oren has even gone so far as to claim the so-called “special relationship” has “ended”.
The US President himself admitted that a “great dislike” for the Jewish state contributed to his Republican Party’s losses, which has been described as a “Blue Tsunami”- a reference to the Democratic Party’s signature blue color and the scale of its electoral gains. Even Vice-President J.D. Vance echoed this assessment.
On the same note, Israeli media and analysts speak of real fears for the future of the alliance. Jean-Marie Guéhenno describes the midterms as a historic turning point for Israel. This scrutiny is no surprise. Back in June 2025 I argued that intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict could undermine Trump’s MAGA coalition by driving up gas prices, inflation, and market turmoil.
By March 2026 the decision to escalate had already expanded beyond the Middle East, with global economic costs and Eurasian ramifications that clearly undercut the “no more forever wars” promise.
Moreover, the Christian Question, as I call it, adds further pressure. Israeli actions affecting Christian communities in the region are eroding soft power among Catholics, Orthodox, and even some Protestants, thereby deepening fractures inside the conservative religious MAGA base itself.
The special relationship, to be accurate, will probably not vanish overnight. A powerful lobby and deep structural ties still exist.
In the context of the (resurfacing) Epstein scandal, the possibility that the US campaign in Iran was motivated by Israeli clandestine pressures, including blackmail should not be dismissed - as even political scientist John Mearsheimer has conceded.
Taking this hypothesis seriously, this would add a whole layer of unpredictability if one were to apply Game Theory to decision-makers - but so far one can only speculate. In any case, the political costs of unconditional support have become visible enough for continuity to be taken for granted.
Trump has even strikingly announced that he is “cutting aid” to Israel. It remains to be seen whether this really will be the case and to what extent.
Neo-Monroeism, by contrast, remains strong. Congressional Democrats may certainly demand more oversight, yet the strategic logic of hemispheric primacy, energy interests, and competition with BRICS partners will continue to drive policy.
While hostile neo-Monroeism in Latin America looks set to endure for the rest of Trump’s term, the real potential shift lies in the Middle East where domestic backlash and Israel’s isolation are challenging the old consensus.