Diplomatic relations between Colombia and the United States have plunged into a new era of tension following a string of dramatic moves and charged rhetoric from both sides. The latest escalation began on Friday, September 26, 2025, when the U.S. State Department revoked the visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro. The decision came just hours after Petro participated in a protest in New York City against the war in Gaza, where he delivered a fiery speech that would quickly reverberate across international headlines.
Standing before a crowd, holding a megaphone and wearing a keffiyeh—the traditional Palestinian scarf—President Petro called for the creation of an international army to liberate the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In a move that stunned many, he urged U.S. soldiers to "disobey" President Donald Trump’s orders, saying they should "not point their rifles against humanity." According to the Associated Press, the U.S. State Department cited these "reckless and incendiary actions" as the reason for revoking Petro’s visa. Within hours, the Department announced the cancellation on social media, making clear that the protest and Petro’s remarks had crossed a line for the current U.S. administration.
Petro, who had been in New York attending the United Nations General Assembly, was already back in Colombia when the announcement was made. Responding on X (formerly Twitter), he appeared unfazed by the development. "I didn’t care about the punishment because I am also an Italian citizen, and could possibly travel to the U.S. without a visa," he wrote. Still, the move sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles, signaling a new low in the already strained relationship between the left-leaning Colombian leader and President Trump’s government.
The U.S. government’s decision did not go unanswered. On Monday, September 29, 2025, Colombia’s Foreign Minister, Rosa Villavicencio, announced that she was renouncing her own U.S. visa in protest. The Colombian Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a pointed statement, saying it was not interested in "diplomatic visas that limit opinions" or curtail the nation’s "sovereignty." The statement underscored what many in Bogotá see as a pattern of heavy-handedness from Washington—particularly when it comes to Colombia’s foreign policy positions and its approach to regional security.
Villavicencio’s move, while largely symbolic, was unusual enough to prompt commentary from immigration law experts in the United States. David Hart, a Miami-based immigration attorney, told the Associated Press, "They are doing this for the media and to show solidarity with Petro." He noted that non-immigrant visa holders, such as those with tourist or diplomatic visas, almost never go through the trouble of formally renouncing their travel permits. "If you don’t want to travel to the U.S. you can simply choose not to come," added Wilfredo Allen, another Miami attorney. He explained that there is no formal procedure for quitting a non-immigrant visa, and that Villavicencio would likely have to send a letter to the U.S. embassy requesting cancellation. "I had never seen someone take their time to renounce a non-immigrant visa," Allen remarked.
But for the Colombian government, symbolism appears to be the point. The visa revocations and subsequent renunciations have become the latest flashpoint in a broader diplomatic rift, one fueled by disagreements over drug policy, the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and U.S. military actions in neighboring Venezuela. Earlier in September, the Trump administration placed Colombia on a list of countries it claims are not fulfilling their international commitments to curb drug trafficking. This move added yet another layer of friction to what was already a complicated relationship.
President Petro, for his part, has not shied away from confrontation. On Monday, September 30, he escalated his rhetoric by referring to President Trump as an "accomplice to genocide" in the Gaza Strip. He went even further, insisting that the U.S. army disobey Trump in relation to the conflict in Gaza. According to reporting from multiple outlets, these statements came in direct response to the U.S. State Department’s actions and reflect Petro’s deepening anger over American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Petro’s response has not been limited to harsh words. On the same day, he announced that Colombia would seek to renegotiate its free trade pact with the United States—a move that could have significant economic implications for both countries. According to Bloomberg, Petro also declared his intention to terminate Colombia’s trade accord with Israel, further signaling a shift in Colombia’s international alliances and priorities. These announcements mark a dramatic departure from the traditionally close economic and diplomatic ties between Bogotá and Washington, as well as with Israel.
The implications of these moves are far-reaching. Colombia’s free trade agreement with the U.S. has been a cornerstone of its economic policy for years, supporting billions in bilateral trade and investment. Renegotiating or even threatening to withdraw from the pact introduces new uncertainty for exporters, investors, and workers on both sides of the border. Likewise, ending the trade accord with Israel could have ripple effects in sectors ranging from agriculture to technology.
Underlying these high-profile moves is a profound disagreement over the direction of Colombia’s foreign and domestic policy. The Trump administration’s decision to put Colombia on the so-called "narcotics blacklist" earlier this month was seen by many in Bogotá as both punitive and politically motivated. Petro’s critics in the U.S. argue that his government has not done enough to combat drug trafficking, while supporters contend that Washington’s approach is outdated and fails to account for the complexities of Colombia’s internal challenges.
Meanwhile, the Gaza conflict has become a lightning rod for broader disputes over human rights and the role of the U.S. in global affairs. Petro’s vocal support for Palestinian causes and his willingness to confront U.S. policy head-on have earned him praise from some quarters, but have also drawn sharp criticism from others who see his actions as reckless or even destabilizing. The Colombian president’s call for an international army to "liberate" the West Bank and Gaza, coupled with his plea for U.S. soldiers to "disobey" orders, is unprecedented in recent Latin American diplomacy.
As of the end of September 2025, the diplomatic standoff shows no sign of easing. Both sides appear dug in, with Washington holding firm on its visa revocation and Bogotá doubling down on its demands for respect and sovereignty. With Colombia now threatening to upend major trade agreements and publicly denouncing the U.S. president, the stakes have rarely been higher for the future of bilateral relations between the two countries.
How this standoff will play out remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the events of late September 2025 have fundamentally altered the tone and trajectory of U.S.-Colombian relations, ushering in a period of uncertainty and, perhaps, transformation.