In a tumultuous week that has left Colombian politics reeling and international observers watching closely, President Gustavo Petro has found himself at the center of a diplomatic firestorm. The controversy began with a forceful speech at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, where Petro sharply criticized former U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to Latin America, migrants, and the global war on drugs. The fallout from a series of bold moves—culminating in the unprecedented revocation of Petro’s U.S. visa—has raised serious questions about Colombia’s foreign relations, domestic stability, and the legacy Petro hopes to leave with just ten months remaining in his term.
On September 15, 2025, the Trump administration officially decertified Colombia as a reliable partner in the War on Drugs, citing increased coca cultivation and cocaine production. According to reporting by NACLA, this marked the first such decertification since 1997. While the Trump administration waived the harsh sanctions that usually accompany such a move, the public rebuke was sharp. In its submission to Congress, the White House squarely blamed President Petro for Colombia’s failure to meet its drug control obligations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio went so far as to call Petro “erratic” and “not a very good partner in taking on the drug cartels.” The administration contrasted Petro’s leadership unfavorably with the “skill and courage” of Colombia’s security forces and local authorities.
Petro, a long-standing critic of U.S.-led drug policy, responded with characteristic defiance. In a televised cabinet meeting, he condemned the politicization of the drug war, pointing out that U.S. demand for cocaine is the root of the problem. Petro reiterated his opposition to aerial fumigation and militarized eradication, which he argued disproportionately harm small farmers rather than criminal organizations. Nevertheless, violence linked to the drug trade has escalated, and while Petro’s administration has seized more cocaine than any previous government, coca cultivation has tripled in the past decade. According to UPI, Petro accused the United States of using the decertification as a diplomatic weapon and interfering in Colombia’s upcoming 2026 elections—a claim not without precedent, as a recent report from El País detailed a thwarted plot to oust Petro that was pitched to U.S. officials and hinged on decertification as an initial step.
The diplomatic crisis deepened dramatically on September 26, when Petro participated in a pro-Palestinian rally in New York City alongside musician Roger Waters. There, he used a megaphone to urge U.S. troops “not to point their rifles against humanity” and called on “the nations of the world” to form an army “larger than that of the United States” to defend Palestinians. As reported by UPI, the U.S. State Department swiftly announced on X (formerly Twitter) the revocation of Petro’s visa, citing his “reckless and incendiary actions.” The move was unprecedented—a sitting head of state effectively barred from returning to the United States. Colombia’s Foreign Ministry denounced the action as a violation of the United Nations Charter of 1945 and international law, arguing that “a Trump administration resolution was used as a diplomatic weapon.” The Ministry’s statement insisted that the Charter guarantees “on-site participation, with the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, without regard to borders.”
Petro did not back down. Upon returning to Colombia, he posted on X: “The fact that the Palestinian Authority was not allowed entry and that my visa was taken away for asking the U.S. and Israeli armies not to support a genocide, which is a crime against all humanity, shows that the U.S. government no longer complies with international law.” He even suggested relocating the United Nations headquarters from New York to Doha, Qatar, arguing for “a completely neutral host country” that would ensure access for all member states, regardless of political disagreements.
Earlier in the week, Petro had delivered a high-profile address at the UNGA, in which he accused Trump of being an “accomplice to genocide” in Gaza and called for the United Nations to enforce its decisions on the conflict. He also demanded a “criminal proceeding” against the U.S. president after American military strikes destroyed boats in the Caribbean allegedly carrying drug traffickers. Petro linked the U.S. decertification of Colombia to his own positions on Gaza and environmental issues, describing the decision as political interference. According to ColombiaOne, Petro’s speech at the UN was widely seen as a legitimate defense of national sovereignty and a necessary rebuttal to what he described as U.S. hypocrisy in the war on drugs.
But if Petro’s address at the UN was a high point, the rest of his week was marked by what critics have called a “catalog of missteps.” His participation in the street rally, while an act of solidarity with Palestinians, was seen as breaking basic diplomatic protocols for a head of state. The rapid U.S. response—visa revocation—left Colombia’s official voice reduced to that of a protester, rather than a participant in formal international diplomacy. The move has strained relations with Washington, a vital partner for Colombia in trade, security, and economic matters.
Back in Bogotá, on September 29, Petro convened a Council of Ministers meeting and announced a sweeping overhaul of Colombia’s foreign policy, including distancing the country from its global partnership with NATO. “Breaking traditional relations” at the tail end of a presidential term, critics argue, is reckless. As ColombiaOne noted, foreign policy built over decades cannot be undone with a single Council of Ministers meeting. The perception is growing that Petro is spending his final months not on enacting concrete reforms, but on constructing a narrative for his supporters and perhaps for the history books—a narrative of standing up to global powers, even at the risk of national stability.
The conservative opposition has seized on the chaos, framing the week’s events as evidence of Petro’s unsuitability for office. Yet, despite dire predictions of economic collapse after his 2022 election, Colombia’s economy has remained relatively stable, with inflation and growth fluctuating but not imploding. The real worry, observers say, is that Colombia could become an unpredictable and uncomfortable partner if presidential diplomacy continues down this path.
With just ten months left in his mandate, the stakes are high. Petro’s left-wing coalition, which came to power with support from moderates and non-ideological voters, now faces the risk of alienating all but its most fervent base. As Colombia continues to grapple with violence, inequality, and climate challenges, critics argue that these problems cannot be solved by speeches at the United Nations—or by megaphone in Manhattan.
As the dust settles from this extraordinary week, one thing is clear: the words and actions of President Gustavo Petro have set Colombia on a new—and uncertain—course in its relationship with the United States and the wider world. The ultimate impact, however, will depend not on rhetoric, but on the choices made in the crucial months ahead.
