Relations between the United States and Colombia have hit one of their lowest points in decades, as a series of diplomatic clashes, policy disagreements, and public accusations have placed the longstanding alliance under severe strain. Once considered Washington’s most reliable partner in Latin America, Colombia now finds itself at odds with the U.S. on issues ranging from drug policy to Venezuela, and, most recently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fallout has included high-level visa cancellations, public rebukes at the United Nations, and warnings that the future of regional cooperation hangs in the balance.
Since the early 2000s, the U.S. has invested more than $10 billion in Colombia through Plan Colombia, a strategy designed to combat drug production and foster peace in a country long plagued by violence. This partnership, which tied Colombia’s security policies closely to U.S. priorities, has been credited with major reductions in violence and the demobilization of guerrilla groups. However, the election of President Gustavo Petro in 2022 marked a turning point. Petro, a former guerrilla himself, campaigned on a platform of ending the militarized drug war and seeking “Total Peace” through negotiation with armed groups—a sharp departure from previous governments.
Petro’s administration has prioritized harm reduction, social investment, and alternative development over the U.S.-backed strategy of forced eradication and militarized suppression. As a result, tensions have flared, especially as cocaine production in Colombia reached a record high of over 1,500 metric tons in 2022, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Senator Lindsey Graham summed up Washington’s frustration, saying, “The Colombian government needs to understand that failing to combat drug production not only affects Colombia but also poses a direct threat to the United States.”
The drug policy dispute is just one facet of the growing divide. The crisis in neighboring Venezuela has seen millions flee political repression and economic collapse, with Colombia hosting more than 2 million refugees. The U.S. has pushed for isolating President Nicolás Maduro’s regime, while Petro’s government has opted for dialogue, seeking regional stability rather than confrontation. This approach has drawn criticism in Washington, where officials argue that a softer line on Caracas undermines efforts to restore democracy and human rights in Venezuela.
But it was President Petro’s vocal support for Palestinian rights, and his participation in a pro-Palestinian protest during the 2025 United Nations General Assembly, that brought the simmering tensions to a boil. Following the protest, the U.S. State Department revoked Petro’s visa, along with those of several other Colombian officials. According to Reuters, Petro responded by accusing the U.S. of violating international law and called the move “an act of imperial arrogance.” On social media, he declared, “Revoking [visas] for denouncing genocide [in Gaza] shows the U.S. no longer respects international law,” adding defiantly that as a dual citizen in Europe, he “doesn’t care” about the U.S. visa.
The U.S. government, for its part, has not minced words. At a U.N. Security Council meeting on October 3, 2025, U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz accused Petro of “undermining progress to lasting peace” and called his policies “frankly irresponsible failures” that have led to “greater instability and violence.” Waltz urged Colombia to prioritize combating violence and drug trafficking by so-called “narco-terrorist groups.” He also expressed deep concern about peace negotiations that could offer impunity to armed actors, warning that unchecked violence “can spread and jeopardize the safety of Colombians, the safety of everyone in the region, and certainly of Americans,” according to the Associated Press.
The diplomatic rift deepened as Petro openly criticized U.S. military actions in the Caribbean, where the Trump administration had just announced its fourth deadly strike on boats it claimed were trafficking narcotics. Petro accused the U.S. of “murder,” insisting there were no “narco-terrorists” on the boats, but rather “poor Caribbean youth.” This stark difference in perspectives has only fueled mutual distrust.
Colombian officials have not stood by quietly. The country’s Foreign Ministry condemned the U.S. visa cancellations as breaches of diplomatic norms, and several ministers—including Foreign Minister Rosa Villavicencio—renounced their own U.S. visas in solidarity. Meanwhile, U.S. officials responded with derision. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau mocked Colombian leaders on social media, suggesting they could not give up “what they don’t have,” as reported by Latin America Reports. Interior Minister Armando Benedetti pointed to what he called a double standard, arguing that Washington would never revoke Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visa, even in the face of an International Criminal Court warrant.
This standoff has implications far beyond travel restrictions. For many in Latin America, the U.S. decision to wield visa policy as a geopolitical weapon evokes a long history of neocolonial interventionism. Petro’s defiance has resonated across the region, where memories of U.S.-backed coups and interventions remain vivid. The confrontation also raises questions about the credibility of the United Nations as a neutral forum if powerful states can deny entry to elected leaders for their political views.
Amid these tensions, the future of U.S.-Colombia cooperation is in doubt. The 2016 peace accord between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is being closely monitored by the U.N. Security Council. U.S. support for the U.N. mission in Colombia is now in question, with Waltz warning that the Trump administration is “examining whether it merits continued support.” Colombia’s U.N. Ambassador, Leonor Zalabata Torres, made an impassioned plea for renewal of the mandate, emphasizing the Petro government’s commitment to the peace agreement, especially provisions recognizing Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities as “fundamental pillars for building a complete stable and lasting peace.”
U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenča, who recently visited Colombia, told the Security Council that consolidating peace after decades of conflict remains “a complex work-in-progress” and that the country is entering a “delicate period,” with presidential and legislative elections looming in May 2026. Petro is barred from seeking re-election, but the outcome of these contests—and the direction of Colombia’s foreign policy—will be closely watched.
The breakdown of trust between Washington and Bogotá could have far-reaching consequences for regional security, migration, and the international fight against narcotics. Analysts warn that unless both sides find common ground, the partnership that once anchored U.S. policy in Latin America may unravel, with ripple effects across the hemisphere. For now, the only certainty is that the U.S.-Colombia relationship is at a crossroads, with each side standing firm on its principles and priorities.
As both nations look ahead, the challenge will be to balance domestic priorities with the demands of international diplomacy—no easy feat, given the current climate of mistrust and competing visions for peace and security. Whether this rift can be bridged remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the stakes have rarely been higher for both Colombia and the United States.
