1. THE DIPLOMACY OF MONITORING

The geopolitical landscape of 2025 has consolidated a critical transition in hemispheric diplomacy, where United States embassies in Latin America have assumed a role that transcends formal representation to act as advanced monitoring posts. According to the new National Security Strategy (NSS) released in December 2025, the control of migratory flows and the containment of the influence of rival powers have become the pillars of American regional prominence. This phenomenon, characterized by analysts as a “return to the past” of the MonroeDoctrine, instrumentalizes the diplomatic corps to actively monitor whether local governments are “privileging” migrants or facilitating transit routes. Under the “Brazil gaze,” this new era of monitoring not only strains national sovereignty but also places the issue of migration at the heart of hegemonic competition, in which the dispute over meaning and stigma become political weapons to discipline the Global South in the face of Washington's interests.

The reconfiguration of United States foreign policy toward Latin America, consolidated in its recent National Security guidelines, signals a paradigmatic transition from the traditional diplomacy of cultural and economic influence, also known as “soft power,” to a pragmatic diplomacy of monitoring. This movement, interpreted by analysts as a contemporary update of the Monroe Doctrine, redefines the role of diplomatic representations in the region. Under the aegis of the new strategy, embassies transcend their protocol and cooperation-promoting functions to act as operational centers for monitoring and control. Under the pretext that the ultimate goal is to defend the sovereign right of the US to control its borders and reduce illegal immigration, the guidance is that this work should be done by encouraging (or pressuring) other countries to do the same. Thus, the central focus of this doctrine shifts from abstract democratic promotion to prioritizing migration control and containing what they perceive as transnational threats, establishing an ostentatious projection of the US border onto the sovereign territory of Latin American nations. In this context, diplomatic infrastructure is converted into an advanced security mechanism, where the collection of biometric data, the integration of intelligence systems, and pressure for local containment policies serve the purpose of externalizing US borders.The rhetoric of partnership gives way to a logic of securitization, in which regional stability is interpreted strictly from the perspective of US internal defense. Thus, this monitoring diplomacy institutionalizes technological and administrative tutelage, transforming the Latin American geographic space into a strategic buffer zone, where constant monitoring replaces ideological persuasion as the main tool of hegemony in the hemisphere.

2. THE NEW MANDATE OF EMBASSIES: THE "PIVOT OF 2025"

Unlike the classic model of diplomacy, focused on maintaining bilateral relations and economic cooperation, Trump's new mandate seeks to transform diplomatic headquarters into centers of external scrutiny. Under the pretext of guaranteeing "regional stability," embassies have been instructed to produce compliance reports on the effectiveness of border barriers and compliance with population containment protocols. As reported, the management of migratory flows in Latin America has ceased to be an exclusively sovereign matter and has become a criterion for assessing the maintenance of strategic partnerships. In this regard, the U.S. State Department has issued new guidelines requiring embassies to act as direct monitoring bodies of the internal policies of host countries. Instead of merely promoting dialogue, diplomats must now: a) monitor local immigration laws and report if they encourage or facilitate mass migration; b) assess border control in third countries (such as Mexico, Guatemala, and Panama) and document human rights violations and criminal activities possibly resulting from uncontrolled migration and the networks that enable it; and c) assess whether local governments are being “complicit” or “inefficient” in blocking caravans and migratory flows northward. Under the “threat” approach, the State Department framed mass migration as a matter of national security and a threat to regional human rights, which underpins the new guidelines.

The reports produced by these embassies will serve as the basis for Washington’s “scoring system.” Countries that fail to demonstrate rigor in immigration control, following the standards required by the US, risk having any financial and military aid suspended, the review of trade agreements already signed, and even direct diplomatic sanctions.

In this scenario, the "2025 pivot" refers to the transition from a diplomacy of cooperation to a diplomacy of monitoring and pressure. The focus has shifted from long-term regional development to immediate and external crisis management of American borders.

However, this monitoring is frequently accompanied by demonstrations of force. The sending of military assets and warships to regions of tension, as observed in the siege of Venezuela, demonstrates that diplomatic auditing is the bureaucratic face of a pressure strategy that does not hesitate to use naval power to validate its political demands. Despite the fundamentals of regional sovereignty, there is a strong reaction from Latin American leaders, who see this measure as undue intervention in internal affairs.

As we attempted to outline in the table regarding the paradigm shift within the context of a new US foreign policy, the reconfiguration of immigration guidelines under the Donald Trump administration in 2025 marks a structural break with the previous paradigm, replacing Joseph Biden's approach, more focused on addressing systemic socioeconomic causes in Latin America (albeit in a very insufficient and disorganized way), with a doctrine of strict law enforcement and border security. According to data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), this "pivot" resulted in significant numbers, including 605,000 formal deportations and the voluntary departure of 1.9 million immigrants, in addition to the imposition of entry restrictions on approximately 40 nations. This shift toward a containment strategy not only defines the government's operational success from a national security perspective but also intensifies friction with human rights organizations by prioritizing coercive control over regional development.

3. TOOLS OF COERCION AND TECHNOLOGICAL MONITORING

Contemporary migration governance exercised by the United States in Latin America transcends physical presence at border posts, consolidating itself through a sophisticated technical apparatus operated via consulates and embassies. This system is based on the convergence between legal rigor and technological innovation, transforming diplomatic representations into advanced screening and surveillance posts. The central pillar of this strategy lies in the implementation of state-of-the-art biometric systems and the deep integration of transnational databases. As detailed by the updates to immigration laws in 2025, the collection of metadata and biometric information has evolved into the composition of a hemispheric database under the control of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This digital repository allows for the meticulous tracking of individuals even before they begin physical movement, creating a "smart border" that operates preventively and extraterritorially.

This technological infrastructure functions as a tool of coercion that redefines regional sovereignty. Through legal-digital monitoring, the granting or revocation of visas and the application of sanctions are operated by migratory risk algorithms, which process information in real time to block undesirable profiles. The effectiveness of this monitoring is directly reflected in the Latin American socioeconomic impact. Data from AS/COA demonstrate that since his return to the presidency in January 2025, Donald Trump has established immigration management as the central pillar of his administration, basing his actions on the declaration of a national emergency and classifying the flow at the southern border as an invasion. This political stance has translated into immediate measures to revoke legal residency permits for hundreds of thousands of individuals, significantly impacting populations from Latin America and the Caribbean, especially from nations such as Cuba, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. In addition to reviewing legal status, the government has intensified the promotion of large-scale detentions and deportation processes throughout the United States.

The financial and structural support for this agenda was consolidated by the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” signed into law in July of last year, which authorized the allocation of approximately US$170 billion over four years. This amount is intended for the physical and technological expansion of the border wall, the increase in custody capacity in detention centers, and the strengthening of the surveillance network.

Furthermore, technical refinement of the security apparatus has resulted in faster and more precise deportation processes, drastically altering the flow of remittances and the stability of local communities. Ultimately, the externalization of the border through data control establishes a regime of continuous monitoring, where American technological dominance over the biographical and biometric information of the hemisphere consolidates a new form of geopolitical power based on total electronic surveillance.

4. THE IMPACT ON REGIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THE "BRAZILIAN PERSPECTIVE"

The intensification of technological surveillance apparatus on American borders projects a structural dilemma onto Brazil between preserving diplomatic autonomy and the growing pressure to align its security policies with Washington's guidelines. According to analyses by the Unicamp Journal, the tightening of immigration restrictions and the use of advanced biometrics have placed Brazilian territory in an undesirable strategic position, acting as a "buffer country" to contain flows that do not even have Brazil as their final destination. This configuration highlights a threat to regional sovereignty, as the Brazilian State is compelled to internalize foreign security protocols and cooperate with the monitoring of individuals in transit, often to the detriment of its own traditions of hospitality and diplomatic neutrality.

Submission to this control model is not limited to the administrative sphere but has repercussions in a humanitarian crisis of significant dimensions. The implementation of these policies generates a scenario of panic and persecution, where the sharing of migratory data exposes vulnerable populations to extradition and summary deportation processes. By integrating itself into the hemispheric surveillance system controlled by the United States, Brazil risks transforming its consular representations and checkpoints into extensions of the American security apparatus. This dynamic compromises the capacity to formulate an independent foreign policy for Latin America, since border security becomes dictated by algorithms and risk criteria defined unilaterally by the Department of Homeland Security, challenging the premise of self-determination of peoples in the management of their own territories and human flows.

The legal consequences for Brazilian citizens within this new paradigm of migration control are profound and redefine the relationship between the individual and the State. With Brazil's integration into the hemispheric monitoring system, the main legal implication would lie in the weakening of due process in favor of foreign national security criteria. The massive collection of biometric data and the sharing of criminal and administrative records with US agencies create a state of anticipatory surveillance. Legally, this means that a citizen may have their right to come and go restricted or their visa canceled without the need for a concrete infraction, based merely on predictive analyses by algorithms that operate outside Brazilian jurisdiction, hindering any attempt at defense or judicial challenge.

Furthermore, Brazil's position as a "buffer country" alters the application of international human rights and refugee treaties. In practice, diplomatic pressure leads to a more restrictive interpretation of national immigration laws, resulting in entry bans and summary deportations that often ignore the principle of non-refoulement. For Brazilians living in or attempting to enter the United States, the consequence is the precariousness of their legal status: minor administrative infractions, now detected with surgical precision by technological apparatus, become automatic triggers for severe sanctions. This creates a vacuum of consular protection, where the Brazilian state, by technically aligning itself with Washington's directives, sees its capacity to provide legal assistance to its nationals limited by the very data architecture it helped to foster.

5. THE FUTURE OF THE HEMISPHERIC RELATIONSHIP

Analysis of the technological monitoring apparatus and tools of migratory coercion reveals that the management of human flows in Latin America is not an end in itself, but a tactical component of the reaffirmation of US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. As reported by Agência Brasil, American diplomacy has reaffirmed its regional "prominence" as a direct message to China's growing influence in the region. In this scenario, border control and migratory data infrastructure function as a mechanism of geopolitical containment; by requiring Latin American countries, including Brazil, to adopt its technological standards and security protocols, Washington ensures a technical and normative primacy that hinders the penetration of infrastructure and strategic partnerships proposed by rival powers.

This process consolidates what we describe as a "dispute of meanings," in which migration monitoring is instrumentalized to stigmatize governments and movements that do not fully align with the White House's security guidelines. The stigma of "insecurity" or "border inefficiency" is also used as justification for technical interventions and political pressure, labeling sovereign administrations as threats to hemispheric stability. Ultimately, the 21st-century border ceases to be a geographical line and becomes a digital network of exclusion. The future of hemispheric relations, therefore, is contingent upon this architecture of surveillance which, under the pretext of migratory security, seeks to preserve Latin America within an exclusive sphere of influence, sacrificing regional autonomy and individual rights in the name of a global hegemonic competition that permanently redefines the concept of sovereignty.