Juan Cruz Díaz is managing director at Cefeidas Group. Before founding Cefeidas, he was director of Public Policy Programs at the Americas Society/Council of the Americas. With advanced studies from The Fletcher School at Tufts University and Harvard University and early experience at the Organization of American States and the Council of the Americas, Juan has worked at the intersection of multilateral negotiation, economic policy and global governance.
How did your interest in international law and multilateralism develop, and what key experiences shaped your early career and understanding of these fields?
I am a lawyer with a deep interest in international affairs, and my path in international law began with my passion for human rights. As a law student, being part of the Latin American Council of International Law Scholars and editing a law journal brought me closer to multilateralism and diplomacy, showing me how law could transform reality at the international level.
Over time, I realized that while many focused on the inter-American human rights system, major decisions shaping global equity were made in trade and institutional architecture — especially with the rise of bilateral treaties, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and the U.S. push for free trade agreements. That realization deepened my commitment to understanding how law and institutions can foster positive change, even in the private sector.
At Fletcher, professors such as Joe D. Trackman and Alan Henryson introduced me to diplomacy and multilateral negotiation, and at Harvard, Jorge Domínguez, Stephen Levitsky and Samuel Huntington profoundly shaped my perspective on global and comparative politics.
A defining experience was working at the OAS Secretariat for the Summits of the Americas. I prepared for the 2005 Mar del Plata Summit, where the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas was discussed. Later, at the Council of the Americas in New York, I explored the interplay between the private and public sectors and co-founded Americas Quarterly. These formative years gave me a unique vantage point on how multilateralism, politics and institutions interact — laying the foundation for my career.
How did Cefeidas Group emerge from that professional career?
About 16 years ago, I reconnected with my partner, Santiago Cohen, a fellow college student. He had been studying in London and then worked at the World Bank in Washington. We sat down in a cafe in Brooklyn and began to design a business plan that would later become Cefeidas Group. From the beginning, we wanted Cefeidas to be different from what existed at the time.
There were government affairs firms, but they were more focused on public affairs or traditional government relations. The approach was to not only help clients with government affairs, but also focus on policy, institution building, multilateral regulations and how interaction with the private sector is central to the development of the ecosystem. We started in a small office with two desks and the clear vision of making an impact, combining law, politics and economics to build institutions and bring positive change in society.
Has your client profile changed over time, or have you always worked with more or less similar clients?
From day one, we have built ourselves as an international firm with a regional focus not specific to Argentina. In corporate governance, we work much more outside Argentina than within it. Our clients are not limited to the country either: Uber operates in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay; Google operates throughout Latin America and Spain. Opening offices in Spain and Chile is an example of that vision.
Although we are very active in Argentina, we are not limited to the local market. Argentina has had its ups and downs like other countries in the region, but it remains an attractive market due to its size, natural resources and human capital. Therefore, we have not seen major changes in our client profile; what does change are the problems and challenges of each moment.
In recent years, have you noticed new risks emerging or existing ones becoming more pressing?
The greatest risk for foreign investors in Argentina has been the difficulty in accessing U.S. dollars. It is very difficult for an international company to decide to invest if it cannot repatriate dividends, pay debts or import equipment.
Although many companies found ways to adapt, this restriction has been the most persistent risk. Ultimately, the lack of U.S. dollars linked to the fiscal deficit is a historic problem.
More progressive governments tend to finance it with monetary issuance, which leads to inflationary crises; center-right governments finance it with debt, which leads to debt crises. Thus, Argentina has oscillated between debt and inflation crises, even reaching hyperinflation.
With the pandemic, both crises came together and worsened within high informality and tax evasion. Faced with a shortage of foreign currency, various governments — from Cristina Kirchner to Mauricio Macri — implemented exchange controls.
In May of this year, currency controls were partially lifted and the Incentive Regime for Large Investments, an investment promotion program, was implemented. Do you think currency controls will be relaxed in the future? What was the purpose of that measure?
The currency controls have not yet been completely lifted; however, eliminating currency controls is one of the president’s promises, because his vision is that of a market without controls, and the RIGI is also part of that path. The RIGI provides investors with guarantees, not only of fiscal stability and access to the foreign exchange market.
The problem is that if the Central Bank does not have dollars, no law can effectively guarantee that access. In that sense, the RIGI is very valuable for attracting investment, but the real solution lies in correcting the fiscal deficit. As long as Argentina spends more than it produces, there will always be a shortage of dollars.
What kind of sacrifices is Milei’s administration making to correct the fiscal deficit?
The sacrifice is reflected in the reduction of public works, adjustments to pensions and retirement benefits, and fewer jobs. The social cost has been very high. The government is betting that giving more freedom to the private sector and the market will generate growth, and with it greater economic activity, more jobs and better social indicators.
The idea is that over time, society will be able to generate savings, channel them into the capital market and eventually sustain a more private pension system within the framework of an economy with less state intervention.
In this sense, do you think that Milei’s plan is on the right track?
I hope so. However, Argentina has had a strong state presence for more than a century, regardless of political affiliation. Furthermore, it is a large country with costly infrastructure — roads and electrical grids — that is not always profitable and often requires state intervention.
The government believes it can change that reality; many are skeptical, but I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt. No one thought Milei could be president, or that he would be able to form a government, or lower inflation, as he is doing. That is why he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
There was a lot of attention around China’s role when Milei renewed the currency swap. How is he managing his relationship with China in that context?
This is a very interesting issue to follow in the coming months and years, not only for Argentina but for many emerging countries. Argentina cannot afford to take sides: we need China because it is one of the main destinations for our agricultural exports and a key source of foreign currency.
Without that market, we would practically go bankrupt, as Europe and the United States strongly protect their markets, including their agricultural sectors. At the same time, the United States is an essential investor, as a financial center, because of its political and cultural ties to the West. Therefore, Argentina must walk a fine line, something that Milei has handled pragmatically beyond his initial ideological positions.
The most sensitive issue today is not so much exports or imports with China, but rather its investments in strategic sectors such as critical minerals and infrastructure, where the United States is paying increasing attention. In addition, in recent months, there have been three high-level visits by the U.S. cabinet to Argentina — something that few countries in the world have had — reflecting the importance of the bilateral relationship.
There is a rapport between Milei and Trump that can be exploited, but the important thing is to institutionalize that relationship so that it does not depend solely on who is in power. At the same time, I do not see it as possible to cut ties with China: Argentina needs both.
What would you recommend for SAIS students who are about to graduate with their master’s degree in Washington and want to start getting involved in the world of trade and multilateralism?
First, maintaining the network you built at SAIS is key; it is something you will value even 20 years later. Thanks to social media, we stay in touch and help each other a lot. Our classmates are all over the world: some in refugee camps in Africa, others working in Afghanistan during the U.S. withdrawal and others in contexts such as the war between Ukraine and Russia.
Even though I am far away today, I feel very present because we are in close communication. It is also important to get to know the rest of the network. Meeting someone who studied before or after you can be very useful for your career. Right now, you are graduating into a very difficult job market in Washington, so it is key to remain open to trying different things and not limiting yourself.
I never imagined I would be where I am today; careers change a lot. Finally, do not lose your original focus on public service. Even if you work in the private sector, that makes you different and valuable. If I have to hire someone and they come with an MBA, I might choose the one with the SAIS background because of that unique approach and training.
Edited by: Maxwell Chen and Blake Uhlig