The indefinite postponement of the 10th Summit of the Americas, announced by the Dominican Republic in late 2025, represents far more than a scheduling conflict. It marks a watershed moment in the disintegration of Pan-American diplomacy. Originally conceived in the 1990s as a vehicle for economic integration and democratic solidarity, the summit mechanism has effectively ground to a halt, paralyzed by what Santo Domingo diplomatically termed “profound divergences.”
This breakdown serves as the clearest indicator yet that the United States’ relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean has entered a volatile new phase. Under the second Trump administration, Washington has aggressively pivoted from multilateral engagement to a security-centric unilateralism. This shift, characterized by naval interdictions and threats of territorial reclamation, has fractured the region into competing blocs, leaving the “Spirit of Miami”—the optimism that launched these summits three decades ago—as a distant memory.
The Death of Dialogue: Why the Summit Stalled
The official rationale provided by the Dominican government for pushing the summit to 2026 was vague, citing obstacles to consensus. However, the subtext is unambiguous: the diplomatic climate is currently too toxic for a productive gathering. The primary catalyst for this freeze is the aggressive posture adopted by the White House, which has prioritized hard-power projection over diplomatic consultation.
Recent months have seen a dramatic escalation in U.S. military activity in the Caribbean. The administration’s expanded naval campaign against narcotics trafficking, which has reportedly involved lethal strikes on vessels in international waters, has drawn sharp condemnation from regional capitals. These operations, combined with inflammatory rhetoric regarding potential military interventions in Mexico and Venezuela, have made it politically impossible for many Latin American leaders to share a stage with U.S. officials without facing domestic backlash.
Furthermore, the very agenda of the summit has become a point of contention. While Latin American nations are desperate to discuss migration pathways, climate financing, and economic development, Washington’s focus has narrowed almost exclusively to border security and counter-narcotics. This misalignment has rendered the preparatory meetings for the summit effectively useless, as diplomats find themselves speaking entirely different languages regarding the hemisphere’s priorities.
‘Americas First’: The Return of the Big Stick
The ideological engine driving this rift is the “Americas First” doctrine championed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump national security team. This approach views the Western Hemisphere not as a community of partners, but as a defensive perimeter and a zone of strategic competition. The administration’s draft National Defense Strategy reportedly codifies this view, placing heavy emphasis on combating transnational crime and curbing Chinese influence through coercive means rather than economic incentives.
This strategic recalibration has manifested in rhetoric that harkens back to the early 20th century. President Trump’s recent social media assertions that the United States could reclaim control of the Panama Canal have sent shockwaves through Central America, reviving historical traumas of U.S. imperialism. Such statements, even if not immediately acted upon, undermine the sovereign trust required for multilateral cooperation.
Simultaneously, the administration has signaled a profound disinterest in established international bodies. By cutting funding to the Organization of American States (OAS) and prioritizing bilateral strong-arming over consensus-building, Washington is actively dismantling the institutional architecture of the inter-American system. The message is clear: if the region wants to engage with the United States, it must be on Washington’s terms, one-on-one, without the protective buffer of a multilateral forum.
A Hemisphere Divided: Pragmatists vs. Sovereigntists
The region’s response to this muscular U.S. foreign policy has been far from uniform. The pressure from the north has exacerbated existing ideological fault lines, splitting Latin America into two distinct camps: those seeking accommodation and those mounting resistance.
On one side are the pragmatists who have chosen to align with the Trump administration to secure economic or political survival. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has positioned himself as a key ally on migration, accepting expanded deportation flights in exchange for U.S. silence on his own domestic consolidation of power. Similarly, Argentine President Javier Milei has leveraged his ideological affinity with the White House to secure crucial financial lifelines from the IMF, stabilizing his country’s economy while pivoting away from Beijing.
Conversely, a bloc of nations led by Brazil and Colombia has sought to draw a line in the sand. Colombian President Gustavo Petro initially attempted to block U.S. deportation flights, only capitulating after the threat of devastating tariffs threatened his country’s economy. Meanwhile, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has become the vocal champion of regional sovereignty, publicly clashing with Washington over its interference in Brazil’s internal legal matters regarding former President Jair Bolsonaro. This polarization makes achieving a unified “regional voice” at any future summit virtually impossible.
The Future of the Summit Mechanism
The indefinite delay of the summit raises existential questions about the utility of these gatherings. Critics argue that if the summit cannot occur during times of crisis, it has lost its purpose. The exclusion of countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua—a practice solidified in previous years and continued by the Dominican Republic—had already weakened the forum’s legitimacy. Now, with the Summit of the Americas process in limbo, alternative venues such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which excludes the U.S. and Canada, may gain prominence as preferred spaces for regional dialogue.
However, abandoning the summit entirely would be a strategic error for Latin American leaders. As diplomats like Antigua and Barbuda’s Ronald Sanders have noted, “attendance is leverage.” The summit remains the only venue where the region can collectively confront the U.S. President. By postponing rather than engaging, the region loses an opportunity to present a united front on critical issues like climate resilience and arms trafficking.
Conclusion
The postponement of the 10th Summit of the Americas is a symptom of a deeper malady: the United States has forgotten how to be a neighbor. By replacing diplomacy with coercion and cooperation with diktats, the Trump administration risks isolating itself in its own hemisphere. While short-term victories may be won through tariffs and threats, the long-term cost is the erosion of U.S. influence in a region increasingly courted by global competitors. If the summit is to be resurrected in 2026, it will require not just a new date, but a fundamental rethinking of how Washington views the Americas—not as a backyard to be policed, but as a partner to be respected.
Original analysis inspired by Adam Ratzlaff and Diana Roy from Foreign Policy. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
