Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has found himself at the center of a diplomatic storm following his participation in a pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York and the subsequent revocation of his U.S. visa by the State Department. The episode, which unfolded over the past week, has exposed rifts between the United States and Colombia, raised questions about the sanctity of international diplomatic norms, and ignited debate over the role of the United States as host of the United Nations headquarters.
On September 26, 2025, President Petro joined a large crowd outside the U.N. headquarters in New York, where he took to a megaphone and delivered a fiery speech. According to Reuters and Xinhua, Petro urged U.S. soldiers to “not point their rifles at humanity” and called on them to “disobey Trump’s orders” and instead “obey the order of humanity.” The demonstration was held in support of Palestinians amid ongoing conflict in Gaza, and Petro’s remarks were broadcast widely on social media.
The response from Washington was immediate and severe. On September 27, the U.S. State Department announced via social media that it would revoke Petro’s visa, citing his “reckless and incendiary actions.” The Department claimed that Petro had “stood on a NYC street and urged U.S. soldiers to disobey orders and incite violence.” The decision marked a dramatic escalation in tensions between the two countries, whose relationship has already been tested by disagreements over drug policy and regional security.
Petro, Colombia’s first leftist president, returned to Bogota the same day, where he addressed the controversy head-on. “I arrived in Bogota. I no longer have a visa to travel to the USA. I don’t care,” he wrote on social media. He further explained that, as a European citizen, he could still use the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) to enter the United States if necessary. Petro’s defiant tone underscored his willingness to challenge Washington’s authority, both at home and on the global stage.
But the Colombian leader did not stop there. He accused the U.S. of violating the principle of immunity that protects world leaders attending U.N. events. “There is total immunity for presidents who attend the (UN General) Assembly,” Petro asserted on X, as reported by Xinhua. He went on to argue that the U.S. decision “violated the principle of immunity that underpins the United Nations,” and suggested that New York may no longer be a suitable host city for the U.N. headquarters. “It would be essential to find a completely neutral host country (for the U.N.) if the countries’ relations are not set aside for UN diplomacy,” Colombia’s foreign ministry echoed in a statement.
The diplomatic row comes at a time of heightened tension between the U.S. and Colombia. Just days before the protest, the Trump administration had decertified Colombia as an ally in the fight against drugs, though it stopped short of imposing economic sanctions. The move was a blow to the historically close partnership between the two nations and reflected Washington’s frustration with Petro’s approach to drug policy and regional security. Colombia, for its part, remains the world’s largest producer of cocaine, and U.S. officials have expressed concerns about the effectiveness of Petro’s strategies.
Petro’s criticism of U.S. policy extended beyond the visa issue. He accused the United States of killing more than a dozen unarmed, poor young people in strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean—a claim Washington disputes, insisting the actions are part of an anti-drug operation off Venezuela’s coast. Petro also condemned the U.S. for preventing Palestinian representatives from attending the U.N. General Assembly, and he renewed his call for the international community to intervene to stop what he described as a “humanitarian disaster” in Gaza.
“Denying entry to the Palestinian Authority and revoking my visa for asking the US and Israeli armies not to support genocide, which is a crime against humanity as a whole, shows the US government no longer complies with international law,” Petro declared, according to Xinhua. He also urged President Trump to reconsider his support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza, stating, “The United States cannot achieve greatness by killing defenseless babies.” These remarks, while controversial, resonated with some segments of the international community who have voiced concerns about the humanitarian cost of the conflict in Gaza.
Back in Colombia, the government rallied around its president. The foreign ministry condemned the U.S. visa revocation as a “diplomatic weapon” and a violation of the U.N. Charter. Interior Minister Armando Benedetti went further, using social media to suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visa should have been revoked instead of Petro’s. “But since the empire protects him, it’s taking it out on the only president who was capable enough to tell him the truth to his face,” Benedetti wrote, referencing Washington’s close relationship with Israel.
The episode has sparked debate about the future of U.S.-Colombia relations and the broader implications for international diplomacy. Some observers argue that the U.S. overstepped by revoking a sitting president’s visa, particularly one attending U.N. meetings, and warn that such actions could erode the global legitimacy of the United Nations. Others, however, contend that Petro’s rhetoric crossed a line and that the U.S. was justified in defending its own security and diplomatic interests.
This diplomatic spat also arrives at a delicate moment for the United Nations itself. The organization’s headquarters has been in New York since its founding in 1945, and the city’s status as a global crossroads has long been a point of pride—and sometimes controversy—for the United States. Petro’s suggestion that the U.N. might need a new, more neutral host country is not without precedent; similar calls have arisen in the past when U.S. visa policies or foreign relations have clashed with the organization’s mission of impartiality and inclusiveness.
As for President Petro, his actions and words have made him a lightning rod for both criticism and praise. Supporters see him as a principled voice for the marginalized and a defender of international law, while detractors accuse him of grandstanding and undermining Colombia’s relationship with its most important ally. What’s clear is that this latest controversy has placed Petro—and Colombia—firmly in the global spotlight, with repercussions that could reverberate well beyond the current news cycle.
While the dust has yet to settle, the events of this past week have underscored the fragility of diplomatic norms and the high stakes of international politics. Whether the U.N. will remain in New York or seek a new home, and whether Colombia and the United States can repair their frayed ties, are questions that will linger long after the headlines fade.
