Milei Re-evaluates Argentina
In 2019, Javier Milei began to lay out a platform that would pave the way for his presidential policies and rhetoric—one defined by a mission to restore capitalism and individual liberties to Argentina. Recently, after a meeting with entrepreneur Peter Thiel, Milei further reaffirmed his policies and philosophical lens, describing them as rooted in “anarcho-capitalism” and emphasizing that his key goal is to win the cultural battle plaguing Argentina.
Milei demonstrates many similarities to other right-wing presidents in the Western Hemisphere, although his approach is far more intense. His more explicitly anarchist stance pushes ideas held by other leaders in Latin America, as well as Donald Trump in the United States, to a new level.
His administration is defined by the use of “shock therapy,” aimed at slashing the country’s budget in an effort to bring Argentina’s turbulent economy under control. Alongside this economic platform, Milei is a staunch opponent of social justice, which he has called a “virus” that stokes resentment and hatred.
However, Milei’s policies and rhetoric are not merely part of a broader right-wing trend in Latin America. They are distinctly shaped by Argentina’s history and the relationship between the state and its people.
To Milei, his social and economic policies respond to what he sees as a culture of laziness plaguing Argentine society—one he attributes to years of left-leaning governments that provided generous benefits. His agenda also reflects an effort to combat the legacy of the Peronist populist movement, which defined much of Argentine life in the 20th century. During this period, Juan and Eva Perón prioritized a strong state—particularly a strong executive—while promoting social justice and expanding benefits for the marginalized working class.
Closely connected to anti-Peronism is the military coup that attempted to end Peronism, which culminated in the 1976-1983 “Dirty War.” During this period, approximately 30,000 people were taken to clandestine detention camps and faced torture and extrajudicial killings carried out by the state. This era was also marked by the “theory of the two demons,” which framed state terror as equivalent to the violence perpetrated by left-wing guerrilla groups. Although this theory lost credibility by the mid-1990s and was widely considered discredited, Milei has appeared to echo it in his rhetoric.
His language reflects elements of the denialism that emerged in the aftermath of the dictatorship, including his claim during a presidential debate prior to his election that “there were no 30,000,” arguing that the number of those killed was significantly lower. He has also described the dictatorship’s crimes as “excesses” committed in the context of a war—a direct restatement of rhetoric used by military leaders to justify their actions and seek impunity.
Milei’s apparent revival of this framework is also reflected in his present-day economic and social policies, particularly federal budget cuts that have disrupted the work of civil society organizations dedicated to preserving memory of this dark period in Argentine history.
These cuts are evident in the condition of former clandestine detention centers ESMA, which was transformed into a UNESCO museum and site of memory in 2008. Budget reductions have led to the museum closing three days of the week, staff layoffs, the shutdown of its cultural center, and a growing need for repairs throughout the site.
Similarly, the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo—an influential human rights organization responsible for reuniting families separated during the dictatorship—have lost government funding despite their ongoing work. Milei has also reduced the state’s participation in ongoing trials of military and police officials involved in the dictatorship. He has previously referred to the group’s leader as “totalitarian,” and dismissed human rights efforts as a “scam.”
While expressing a revisionist and critical stance toward the legacy of the Dirty War, Milei has also worked to dismantle contemporary social programs. His administration has cut social spending, limited the ability to peacefully assemble, and adopted rhetoric widely viewed as anti-journalist and anti-LGBT. He has further vetoed congressional efforts to increase pensions and funding for public universities.
These actions, both retrospective and forward-looking, reflect a broader rejection of social welfare rooted in Argentina’s historical pattern of strong executive power, as well as a return to earlier forms of state discourse. Looking ahead, it is likely that funding for museums and memorials tied to the Dirty War will continue to decline, while social programs face ongoing criticism and reduction as Milei’s culture agenda continues to unfold.