Colombia and the United States, two countries with a long and complicated relationship, have entered a new period of diplomatic strain following a dramatic sequence of events that unfolded in late September 2025. On Monday, September 29, Colombia’s Foreign Minister Rosa Villavicencio publicly renounced her U.S. visa, a move designed to protest the U.S. State Department’s recent decision to revoke the visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro. The government in Bogotá made the announcement, signaling both solidarity with its leader and a deepening rift with Washington.
The immediate cause of this diplomatic standoff can be traced to President Petro’s controversial appearance at a pro-Palestinian protest in New York City while attending the United Nations General Assembly. According to Business Standard and Newsweek, Petro, donning a keffiyeh and wielding a megaphone, called for the creation of an international army to liberate the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He went further, urging U.S. soldiers to “disobey” President Donald Trump’s orders, telling them not to “point their rifles against humanity.”
The U.S. State Department was quick to respond. In a statement posted on social media just hours after the protest outside U.N. headquarters in Manhattan, officials described Petro’s actions as “reckless and incendiary.” The department announced it would revoke Petro’s visa, a rare and pointed measure against a sitting head of state. “Earlier today, Colombian president @petrogustavo stood on a NYC street and urged U.S. soldiers to disobey orders and incite violence. We will revoke Petro’s visa due to his reckless and incendiary actions,” the State Department wrote.
Petro himself appeared unfazed by the decision. On X (formerly Twitter), he wrote in Spanish: “I no longer have a visa to travel to the USA. I don't care.” He explained that, as he is also an Italian citizen, he could potentially travel to the United States without a visa. In another message, Petro declared, “Humanity must be free all over the world. We have the human right to live on the planet.”
Foreign Minister Villavicencio’s response came swiftly. The Colombian government announced that she would renounce her own U.S. visa in protest, though it did not specify what type of visa she held. According to Business Standard, the ministry’s official statement was unequivocal: Colombia was “not interested in diplomatic visas that limit opinions or curtail the nation’s sovereignty.” The foreign ministry further asserted, “The United States, by violating international diplomatic norms and trampling on our immunity, presents itself as both judge and party to its own arbitrariness.”
While the symbolic nature of Villavicencio’s gesture was not lost on observers, immigration attorneys based in Miami noted the rarity of such actions. David Hart, an immigration lawyer, commented, “They are doing this for the media and to show solidarity with Petro.” Wilfredo Allen, another Miami-based attorney, added, “There is no formal procedure for quitting on a non-immigrant visa. If you don't want to travel to the US you can simply choose not to come. I had never seen someone take their time to renounce a non-immigrant visa.”
Beyond the immediate drama, this episode is only the latest in a series of diplomatic tensions between Colombia and the United States. The two countries have been at odds over several issues, including drug policy, the war in Gaza, and a recent U.S. naval buildup near Venezuela. Earlier in September, the Trump administration placed Colombia on a list of nations it claims are not meeting their international commitments to curb drug trafficking, further straining bilateral ties.
For Colombia, the revocation of Petro’s visa and Villavicencio’s subsequent renouncement have become rallying points for national sovereignty and independence on the world stage. The foreign ministry’s statement, as reported by Newsweek, made it clear: “Colombia will continue forward, independent, with full autonomy to raise its voice whenever it considers just and necessary.”
From the U.S. perspective, the decision to revoke Petro’s visa was framed as a matter of national security and diplomatic protocol. The State Department’s public messaging emphasized the gravity of a foreign leader urging American soldiers to disobey the orders of their commander-in-chief—a direct challenge to the authority of the U.S. president and, by extension, to the norms of international diplomacy.
The controversy has also sparked debate within Colombia, where political factions interpret the events through the lens of their own ideological stances. Supporters of President Petro see the U.S. actions as an affront to Colombia’s dignity and a violation of international law, while critics argue that Petro’s rhetoric in New York was unnecessarily provocative and risked undermining Colombia’s most important bilateral relationship.
Meanwhile, the broader context of U.S.-Colombia relations cannot be ignored. For decades, the two countries have cooperated closely on issues such as counternarcotics, security, and economic development. Yet, as both governments have shifted their priorities—Washington focusing more on regional security concerns like Venezuela and global conflicts, Bogotá asserting a more independent foreign policy—the relationship has become increasingly complex and, at times, fractious.
The episode also raises questions about the limits of diplomatic protest and the symbolic power of visa revocations. As Business Standard noted, it is exceedingly rare for non-immigrant visa holders, especially government officials, to formally renounce their travel permits. More often, such actions are left unspoken, with officials simply allowing visas to lapse. Villavicencio’s very public renunciation, therefore, stands as a calculated gesture, intended to send a message both to Washington and to the Colombian public.
In the days since the protest and the subsequent visa drama, neither side has shown any sign of backing down. Colombia’s foreign ministry reiterated its refusal to accept any diplomatic arrangement that would “limit opinions” or infringe on the country’s sovereign right to speak out on global issues. The United States, for its part, has not indicated any willingness to reconsider its decision or to engage in further dialogue on the matter.
As the dust settles on this diplomatic standoff, the future of U.S.-Colombia relations remains uncertain. Both nations have much to lose by allowing tensions to escalate unchecked, but for now, each seems determined to stand its ground. The world will be watching to see whether this episode marks a temporary rupture or the beginning of a more profound realignment in one of Latin America’s most consequential bilateral relationships.