Diplomatic relations between the United States and Colombia, long considered a cornerstone of Washington’s Latin America strategy, have veered into uncharted territory. On October 24, 2025, President Donald Trump declared that all US payments to Colombia would "no longer be made," a move that, if enacted, would abruptly halt military and economic aid to one of America’s closest partners in the region. The announcement followed a week of rising tensions, military escalation, and a tragic incident at sea that has left both nations—and much of Latin America—on edge.
The immediate catalyst for this confrontation was a US military strike on September 16, 2025, which, according to Colombian President Gustavo Petro, killed a Colombian fisherman named Alejandro Carranza. Petro accused the United States of murder and violating Colombian sovereignty, stating, "US government officials have committed a murder and violated our sovereignty in territorial waters. Fisherman Alejandro Carranza had no ties to the drug trade and his daily activity was fishing. The Colombian boat was adrift and had its distress signal up due to an engine failure." As reported by Breaking Defense, this incident has become a flashpoint in an already fraught relationship.
President Trump’s response was swift and severe. On social media, he labeled Petro an "illegal drug leader" and vowed to immediately stop all US payments and subsidies to Colombia. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, reinforced the administration’s hardline stance, making it clear that Trump was uninterested in de-escalation. On the same day, the Pentagon announced the deployment of the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to the US Southern Command’s area of responsibility, aiming to "bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States homeland and our security in the Western Hemisphere."
For Colombia, the potential loss of US aid carries profound implications. The country’s fleet of Black Hawk helicopters, critical for counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism operations, is heavily dependent on American support for spare parts, maintenance, and training. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security, emphasized the importance of these helicopters, noting, "Colombia has used them [the Black Hawks] to fight narco-terrorists, Marxist terrorists. [They’ve] been essential and still are." Elias Yousif, a fellow at the Stimson Center, echoed these concerns, warning that cutting aid would have an "immediate operational effect" and that "Colombia is dependent on the United States for its fleet of Blackhawks … for spare parts, for maintenance and things like that."
Colombia has been a major non-NATO ally of the US since 2022, and the two countries have collaborated for decades, particularly during the 1990s war on drugs. The US played a pivotal role in operations such as the 1993 takedown of drug kingpin Pablo Escobar. In fiscal year 2024, the US provided Colombia with $377 million in foreign assistance, including $37 million in Foreign Military Financing. According to a State Department fact sheet from January 20, 2025, there were $71.6 million in active Foreign Military Sales cases to Colombia. Training has also been substantial, with $16.6 million spent in FY22 and $13.3 million in FY23 to train Colombian military and police forces.
Yet, the Trump administration’s recent actions signal a dramatic shift from the strategies of previous US governments. Where former President Biden sought to address "root causes" of migration—investing in local economies, education, and anti-corruption efforts—Trump’s approach leans heavily on military might and coercion. As Rebecca Bill Chavez, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, told The Hill, "The approach leans more on coercion than cooperation, heavy on sticks and light on carrots. It emphasizes the region’s problems instead of its potential." Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, described the deployment of 10,000 troops to the Caribbean and the authorization of military strikes as "a very colonial way of treating the region, threatening military intervention, sending 10,000 troops to the Caribbean – I mean, these are things that we just don’t have any real parallels in the last 100 years."
The strikes themselves have resulted in at least 43 deaths, according to The Hill, and have drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned the legality and efficacy of the policy, stating, "we can’t have a policy where we just blow up ships where we don’t even know the people’s names," highlighting the difficulty in distinguishing between drug traffickers and civilians. Critics argue that the strikes are less about drug interdiction and more about confronting disfavored leaders—particularly Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and, now, Gustavo Petro.
The Trump administration’s actions have also reignited debate about the legacy of US intervention in Latin America. Plan Colombia, a 15-year, multibillion-dollar initiative to combat drug production and strengthen Colombian security, was once hailed as a model of US-Latin American cooperation. But Ford Maldonado, of the America First Policy Institute, said the partnership has "completely eroded, not on our side, but under their government right now." Others, like American University professor Fulton Armstrong, see the current strategy as dangerously naive, arguing that "if we take down Maduro in Venezuela, Cuba will then immediately collapse right behind it." He added, "We are sort of good at kicking people out. We’re very good at tearing down systems. We’re not very good at doing it with people that can credibly set up a new system."
Regional reactions have been swift and alarmed. Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the US military deployment as "legally and morally unacceptable," warning that "the threats to peace, security, and stability in Our America are real and imminent." Anxiety has spread throughout Latin America as governments weigh how to respond to an increasingly unpredictable US policy—one that has included threats of military action in Mexico and the public acknowledgment of covert CIA operations in Venezuela.
For now, diplomatic channels remain open, if strained. The Colombian Embassy told Breaking Defense that, following consultations in Bogotá, Ambassador Daniel García-Peña, President Petro, and US Chargé d’Affaires John McNamara engaged in a "frank and constructive discussion, marking a step towards resolving the current bilateral impasse." Both sides, the embassy said, "agreed to continue dialogue in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect," reaffirming a shared commitment to fighting illicit drug trafficking.
Still, the future of US-Colombia relations hangs in the balance. As the Trump administration doubles down on its new approach, the stakes for regional security, US credibility, and the lives of ordinary Colombians have rarely been higher. Whether the two countries can find common ground or drift further apart remains an open—and urgent—question.