BOGOTA, Colombia — Alexis Damancio Silva carries a heavy burden from the hardships his community faced in Puerto Narino, located in the remote southern part of Colombia, when an extreme drought hit last year, nearly drying up the Amazon River. The effects were devastating: local wildlife, including pink dolphins and fish, perished, crops wilted under the heat, and the town lost easy access to markets. Silva expresses hope that the United States will fund initiatives to bolster the resilience of Indigenous communities like his, such as the installation of solar panels for energy or the establishment of cisterns to collect precious rainwater.

In a recent virtual interview, Silva appealed for funding from the U.S. government under President Trump, stating, “We ask the government … to send us resources” for the assistance of Indigenous peoples in the region, as local support is woefully inadequate. However, environmental advocates express skepticism about any forthcoming aid, especially after Trump paused new funding for nearly all U.S. foreign assistance.

Critics are apprehensive about the potential ramifications of a second Trump administration for the Amazon rainforest. His administration’s initial actions, including pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, raised alarms about the likelihood of decreased financial support for efforts fighting illegal logging, mining, and other damaging activities. They also noted a concern that he might endorse right-wing politicians prioritizing aggressive development in the Amazon, a crucial ecosystem for carbon storage.

“The implications of the Trump administration for the Amazon rainforest range from very concerning to horrifying,” stated Andrew Miller, advocacy director at Amazon Watch, a nonprofit focused on environmental issues.

In his first week back in office, Trump issued executive orders emphasizing fossil fuel development, such as declaring an energy emergency and declaring intentions to dismantle obstacles hindering oil and gas production. His “America First” stance is seen as contradictory to the principles of expansive foreign aid, making many wary about the future of environmental assistance.

Tensions escalated recently when Trump confronted Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, threatening high tariffs after Petro denied military planes carrying deported migrants the ability to land in Colombia. Additionally, Trump hinted at the possibility of using military force to seize control of the Panama Canal, further illustrating his hardline approach to foreign relations in the region.

Miller recommended that partners within the Amazon milieu prepare for a return to priorities under Trump’s administration that likely exclude climate, environmental, or Indigenous rights initiatives.

During Trump’s previous term, foreign assistance budgets from the U.S. Agency for International Development varied between $17 billion and $27 billion annually, with significant proposed reductions that were often softened by Congress. In contrast, President Biden increased the USAID budget to $30.5 billion in 2024, focusing on global health, climate action, humanitarian aid, and democracy promotion. Under Biden, the aid freeze stands at 90 days while the administration deliberates on which programs to support going forward.

In Brazil, where around 60% of the Amazon is located, organized crime related to logging and drug trafficking surged under the far-right presidency of Jair Bolsonaro, leading to damaging environmental outcomes. However, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has placed a strong emphasis on Amazon preservation since taking office in 2023.

Brazil’s environment minister, Marina Silva, remarked on the challenges Trump’s administration presents for U.S. democracy and global institutions. She stressed the importance of U.S. accountability as the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

While Silva remains cautiously optimistic about the bolstered global climate governance structure now in place to confront the pressing climate crisis, she acknowledges that Trump’s presidency will complicate matters. “This doesn’t mean we will have an easy time with Trump in office, quite the opposite,” she said, referencing the resurgence of companies and leaders who are easing or abandoning previous environmental commitments.

Since Trump’s 2016 election, several major American banks have backed away from an initiative focused on environmentally responsible lending practices tied to reduced emissions. Silva emphasizes the need for nations to persistently confront climate challenges head-on. “Reality needs to take precedence over President Trump’s well-known denialist rhetoric,” she stated.

The question of supporting pro-development politicians is contentious in Brazil. Lawmakers advocating for development often cite economic growth and infrastructure on one side, while environmentalists and Indigenous rights activists warn of detrimental impacts on the ecosystem and local communities. Lula has made strides in curbing illegal activities such as logging and mining while benefitting from support around climate action from Biden, who notably visited the Amazon in November and pledged $50 million to the Amazon Fund, which aims to finance conservation efforts.

Carlos Nobre, a Brazilian climate scientist researching the Amazon, expressed doubt about Trump continuing this commitment. Concerned by Trump’s previous backing of Bolsonaro, Nobre fears a resurgence of right-wing politicians who may push anti-environmental agendas. Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo, is considered a potential presidential candidate next year, even as Bolsonaro himself is barred from running until 2030.

Miller cautioned that Trump’s support for extreme right-wing candidates could further jeopardize the future of the Amazon rainforest, complicating conservation efforts during a time when heightened ambitions and coordinated actions are critical for its protection. He identified potential threats to multilateral human rights mechanisms vital for safeguarding Amazon community leaders and environmental defenders.

Funding cuts and the lack of international collaboration present an additional layer of complication. John Walsh, director of drug policy and the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America, flagged concerns about anticipated budget cuts possibly eliminating U.S. foreign aid related to global climate adaptation and mitigation.

Trump’s initial term saw skepticism toward multinational cooperation, leaning toward unilateral foreign policy measures favoring U.S. interests over international collaborations. “For an issue like climate change, that is a collective action problem… it’s significant,” Walsh said, emphasizing the detrimental implications should the world’s leading economy step back from addressing this global crisis.