View this post on the web at [link removed]

Many conservative commentators in the U.S. fawn over Argentinian President Javier Milei with remarkable enthusiasm. The American Conservative recently ran a piece [ [link removed] ] titled “The Argentine Miracle,” praising his economic policies and urging Western leaders to emulate him. On the surface, it’s easy to understand the appeal. Milei has pulled Argentina back from the brink of economic collapse, stabilizing inflation and introducing long-overdue fiscal reforms. But to acknowledge only his achievements—including his incredibly impressive head of hair—is to miss the forest for the trees. To understand Milei fully, we must move beyond tribal allegiances and honestly evaluate his actions that run counter to liberal democracy.
The Positives
Only the most deluded of individuals could deny that the 54-year-old inherited an economy on the edge of ruin. In his first year, he implemented austerity measures and slashed government spending, cutting through Argentina’s bloated bureaucracy. His dollarization plan, while controversial, brought a semblance of stability to a currency afflicted with hyperinflation.
These are no small feats. His economic turnaround has earned him the respect of millions, both in Argentina and abroad. In a country where decades of corruption, reckless spending and mismanagement had left its people battered by runaway inflation and crippling debt, disillusionment ran deep. Successive leaders promised change but delivered little, as the gap between the rich and poor widened and basic essentials became luxuries for many. The economy was like the Titanic, already taking on water, and Milei stepped in just before it struck the iceberg. His bold, unorthodox approach seemed to offer a lifeline to a nation desperate for something—anything—different.
To stop the analysis there, however, would be intellectually dishonest. His success in economic reform does not absolve him of his deeply troubling authoritarian tendencies.
Milei’s Media Monopoly
Milei’s administration has orchestrated a sweeping crackdown on Argentina’s press, systematically dismantling the foundations of media freedom. From the outset, his government has vilified journalists, labeling them “enemies of the people” and subjecting them to relentless verbal and digital harassment. As Reporters Without Borders—a global organization dedicated to defending press freedom—recently highlighted [ [link removed] ], Milei and his officials have been involved in at least 52 documented instances of stigmatizing rhetoric in 2024 alone. These incidents range from verbal intimidation and public shaming to outright threats on social media.
These attacks are more than symbolic; they have created a climate of fear that inhibits critical reporting. For instance, journalists have faced physical violence, with 12 documented cases in 2024, some of which were carried out by police under a new security protocol designed to suppress public protests.
One of the most alarming examples of this assault on media freedom is the closure [ [link removed] ] of Télam, a state news agency with deep historical roots in Latin America. This drastic measure was a calculated strike at one of Argentina’s key independent news sources, leaving a significant void in public access to unbiased information. The layoffs and crippling budget cuts imposed on other public media outlets, including Radio Nacional [ [link removed] ] and Canal 7 TV, further demonstrate Milei’s intent to silence dissenting voices. Educational channels like Encuentro and Paka Paka, vital for promoting cultural and educational programming, have also suffered severe cuts. By systematically gutting public media, Milei’s administration has curtailed independent journalism, leaving the public with fewer avenues for diverse viewpoints.
Although some conservatives might believe that the gutting of large state-run news agencies is a step in the right direction—reducing government overreach, decentralizing media and ostensibly opening the door for independent journalism—this perspective glosses over the realities of Argentina’s complex media ecosystem.
Public media outlets like Télam, Radio Nacional and Canal 7 TV have historically served as crucial platforms for disseminating information to underserved communities and providing diverse perspectives not always prioritized by private outlets. Their closure or severe reduction leaves a void not easily filled by private or independent media, especially in a country where concentrated media ownership is already a significant concern.
Far from creating a thriving landscape of truly independent journalism, Milei’s cuts risk consolidating media power in the hands of a few private conglomerates, many of which are less concerned with public interest than profit. These private entities often align with their owners’ political or economic agendas, which can skew coverage and limit critical reporting. In this context, the removal of state-backed platforms may paradoxically diminish diversity in media narratives, rather than enhance it.
Moreover, while a smaller state media apparatus might appeal to those wary of government propaganda, Milei’s moves appear less about fostering independent journalism and more about silencing those [ [link removed] ]who dare to question his heavy-handed approach to governance. His administration has provided little indication of efforts to support or protect the journalistic independence of private outlets, raising questions about whether these cuts are part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Dismantling state media may signify not a commitment to a free press, but rather a calculated reshaping of the media landscape to serve the administration’s narrative or priorities.
The Great Wall of Buenos Aires
The parallels to Xi Jinping’s China are impossible to ignore. Just as Xi’s Great Firewall stifles dissent and controls information flow, Milei’s administration has rolled out measures designed to choke transparency and limit public access to critical information, with Decree 780/2024 standing out as a particularly egregious example. This decree grants the government sweeping oversight over media content under the guise of protecting public order and national security. It empowers authorities to monitor and penalize journalists for reporting that is deemed “subversive,” an ambiguously defined term that leaves ample room for subjective interpretation. Under the decree, headlines critical of the administration can be flagged as destabilizing or harmful, leading to fines, forced retractions or even criminal charges against journalists and media outlets.
These measures mirror Beijing’s use of vaguely worded laws to silence critics and suppress unfavorable narratives. Like China’s restrictions on press freedom, Decree 780/2024 creates an environment where self-censorship becomes a survival mechanism for journalists. Fear of retribution discourages reporters from pursuing hard-hitting investigations, while media outlets shy away from publishing content that might attract government scrutiny.
What is particularly striking—and deeply ironic—is the silence of Milei’s American supporters, many of whom are quick to denounce Beijing’s human rights abuses and censorship. Their apparent indifference to these developments in Argentina raises uncomfortable questions about the selective application of their principles. While they praise Milei as a champion of liberty, his administration’s actions suggest a far different trajectory, one that prioritizes control over the free exchange of ideas. If these measures continue unchecked, Argentina risks following a path eerily reminiscent of the very regimes that Milei and his allies claim to oppose.
Is it Milei’s professed Christianity [ [link removed] ] that blinds them to his autocratic leanings? If so, their hypocrisy is laid bare. Just as Viktor Orbán’s defenders overlook his suppression of free speech [ [link removed] ] in favor of his Christian values [ [link removed] ], Milei’s admirers seem willing to excuse his undemocratic impulses. If principles such as freedom of speech and democracy can be set aside for ideological convenience, what do these supporters truly stand for? Milei may speak the language of liberty, but his actions echo the very regimes they claim to despise.
Moreover, his eagerness to deepen ties [ [link removed] ] to China adds a layer of irony to the story. Despite his anti-communist rhetoric, Milei’s willingness to court Xi Jinping for economic cooperation undermines his ideological stance. For Milei’s American supporters, who routinely criticize China’s influence, this partnership should raise alarm bells—or at the very least, an element of suspicion.
Yet, their silence suggests a selective outrage—one driven by convenience rather than principle. Some will argue that Milei is simply being a realist, a pragmatist navigating Argentina’s dire economic straits. Aligning with China, they’ll suggest, is a strategic necessity rather than an ideological betrayal. Nevertheless, pragmatism doesn’t excuse tyrannical tendencies or blatant hypocrisy.
The Weaponization of AI
It’s not just the media under attack. Milei’s recent initiative [ [link removed] ], the Artificial Intelligence Applied to Security Unit, also deserves scrutiny. Ostensibly designed to enhance public safety, this program employs AI to predict and prevent crime. In practice, it’s a blueprint for mass surveillance. Social media posts, private conversations and routine online activity now fall under the watchful eye of a state eager to label dissent as “potential threats.” This Orwellian system is ripe for abuse, weaponized to target critics and silence opposition under the pretext of maintaining order.
Yet again, it’s hard not to see shades of China here. Milei’s preemptive policing brings to mind the Chinese Communist Party’s reliance on AI to monitor and control its citizens. And yet, the supposed defenders of liberty in the U.S. remain strangely quiet. Is this the kind of “strong leadership” they truly admire?
If implemented in America, such a system would transform the country into a high-tech panopticon. Every tweet, text and search would be monitored, with algorithms flagging “suspicious behavior” for state review. Imagine neighborhoods blanketed with facial recognition cameras, protesters tracked and preemptively detained and political dissidents smeared as security risks. Some might argue that America is already there—it’s not (not yet, anyway), but if it were to follow Argentina’s example under Milei, it soon would be.
Truth Over Tribalism
Milei campaigned as a libertarian, promising to dismantle the oppressive state apparatus. Yet his embrace of AI-driven surveillance reveals a clear contradiction. Libertarian ideals of individual freedom and limited government are fundamentally at odds with his authoritarian practices. His supporters must ask if this is the libertarian dream they envisioned. Instead of promoting freedom, Milei is expanding the state’s grip, pulling Argentina toward a high-tech police state. Economic progress is meaningless if it comes at the expense of liberty.
To Milei’s U.S. crusaders, I offer a word of caution. Romanticizing his leadership while overlooking its darker aspects serves no one. His fiery rhetoric and economic achievements may inspire admiration, but they do not excuse his authoritarian excesses. True support means holding leaders accountable, not blindly celebrating their successes while ignoring their faults.
Javier Milei is a complex figure—a man of undeniable talent and vision, but also one whose actions demand scrutiny. To paint him solely as a libertarian savior is to ignore the repressive streak that threatens to undermine the very freedoms he claims to champion.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?