U.S. Pressures Latin America to Increase Military Spending

The United States asked Latin American countries to increase their defense and security spending. The White House argues that organized crime requires greater military and police investment in the region.

The call was made by Elbridge Colby, Deputy Secretary of Defense, in an article for Americas Quarterly. The official called it “absurd” that some countries spend less than 1% of their GDP on defense.

The warning comes at a time of increased pressure from Washington on the hemisphere. It also coincides with the creation of the Shield of the Americas, a regional alliance promoted by the Trump administration.

What Exactly Did Washington Ask For?

Colby argued that Latin American countries must invest more to combat narcoterrorist threats. He said there is no reason to allocate so little to defense when there is violence, drug trafficking, and armed groups. The Deputy Secretary did not identify which countries were below that threshold. However, his message was directed at the entire region and sought to establish a clear political line.

The senior official compared the Latin American effort with increased spending in Europe. He noted that NATO’s European allies are already moving toward a goal of 3.5% of GDP on defense and an additional 1.5% on security. This contrast is not accidental. Washington wants to argue that its regional partners must also assume more costs in internal and border security.

Colby argued that U.S. strategy does not seek subordination. He stated that the objective is to achieve greater prosperity, security, and stability for Latin American countries. He also said that the United States will continue using “all resources” against threats coming from the south. He included drugs and irregular migration flows in that group.

Why Does He Compare the Region to NATO?

The NATO reference seeks to apply political pressure. European allies and Canada increased their defense spending by 20% in 2025. The Atlantic alliance also set a new goal of 5% of GDP by 2035. Of that total, 3.5% would go to basic defense and 1.5% to security and related infrastructure.

The White House uses this example to argue that military investment is not optional. Additionally, it wants to show that its allies have already accepted this.