Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first-ever leftwing president, has ignited a series of controversies since his election to the nation’s highest office in 2022. His administration has already been overshadowed by a rocky diplomatic relationship with the United States and their ex-president, Donald Trump. As Petro navigates through international politics, he appears to thrive on conflict, often utilizing social media and delivering lengthy speeches to articulate his stance.
Petro’s ascent to power has not been without its troubles. Trump has now personally blamed him for the flood of illegal drugs onto American streets. These serious allegations have further fanned the flames of their deep feud. The U.S. government subsequently sanctioned Petro and his wife in light of these allegations. This act made the already contentious diplomatic state of affairs between the two countries more complex. These tensions escalated when Petro publicly called upon American soldiers to disobey illegal orders during a pro-Palestine rally in New York, showcasing his willingness to confront the U.S. government directly.
The underlying relationship between the two dynamic leaders changed dramatically when Petro invited Trump to have a conversation. Read the two leaders’ complete readouts from their hour-long call. Throughout the call, Petro implored his supporters to organize city-by-city and state-by-state across the country. Trump’s subsequent threats of military action against Colombia mirrored operations previously carried out in Venezuela, indicating a volatile relationship. Trump characterized Petro as a “sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States,” intensifying the rhetoric between Washington and Bogotá.
Despite these charges, Petro worked vigorously to ensure U.S. cooperation. His intent was to target National Liberation Army (ELN) guerilleros, who often cross into Venezuela when pursued in Colombia. Petro’s call for cooperation must be taken with this important context. While he lambasts U.S. policies and actions, deep down, he knows that he has to cooperate with the U.S. to address security threats plaguing his country.
Petro’s visa to the United States was revoked after these events, further isolating him from U.S. political circles. Plus, his government has rejected U.S. military aircraft with deported Colombian citizens aboard, a stark diplomatic rebuff.
Petro’s contentious political past hangs heavily over his presidency too. He had been an active member of Colombia’s M-19 guerrilla group before his radical turn to politics. In 1981, he was appointed an ombudsman in his hometown. His past included a harrowing experience when he was detained by the army in 1985 for weapon possession and subjected to torture—a background that informs his political identity today.
Though most everything about Petro’s presidency has been hotly debated, at home his electoral win has come under such little scrutiny. Political analysts note that this aggressive style plays well in some sectors of the Colombian public. Adam Isacson noted, “This is a leader who is every day saying what he thinks about Trump and using very strong language.” Petro himself has acknowledged that attacks against him only bolster his support, stating, “The more I am attacked, the more support I get.”
This aggressive, combative approach has serious political consequences at home in Colombia. Sandra Borda warns, “If Petro insists on provoking Trump, it will become more costly politically in terms of the domestic political process.” The complexities of U.S.-Colombia relations are further underscored by Cynthia Arnson’s remarks on the efforts required to keep ties from unraveling: “It’s taken herculean efforts by diplomats on the Colombian and the U.S. side to keep the relationship from imploding.”