Colombian President Gustavo Petro found himself at the center of a diplomatic firestorm this week after the Trump administration announced it was revoking his U.S. visa, citing what it described as "reckless and incendiary actions" during his visit to New York City. The move, which followed a series of controversial speeches and public statements by Petro, has further strained already tense relations between the two countries and ignited debate across the Americas about the boundaries of political protest and the future of U.S.-Colombian ties.
The controversy erupted on September 26, 2025, as Petro participated in events surrounding the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. According to Fox News and other outlets, the Colombian leader addressed a crowd outside the U.N., where he delivered a fiery speech calling on nations around the world to contribute soldiers for an army "larger than that of the United States." The rally, which was also a demonstration against Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, drew a diverse and impassioned audience.
Petro’s remarks did not stop there. In a moment that quickly went viral online, he directly addressed U.S. soldiers, urging them to "disobey Trump’s order" and instead "obey the order of humanity." The comments, delivered with Petro’s characteristic fervor, were interpreted by many as a call for insubordination within the U.S. military. The U.S. State Department wasted no time in responding. A post on its official X account stated, "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."
Petro’s visit to New York had already been marked by controversy. Earlier in the week, during his official address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 23, he called for criminal investigations against former U.S. President Donald Trump and other administration officials. The reason? Deadly strikes on boats in the Caribbean that the Trump White House claimed were carrying drugs. According to the Associated Press, Petro denounced the attacks as an "act of tyranny" and accused Trump of "criminalizing poverty and migration."
"Criminal proceedings must be opened against those officials, who are from the U.S., even if it includes the highest-ranking official who gave the order: President Trump," Petro declared, as reported by Fox News. He went on to challenge the Trump administration’s assertion that the boat passengers were members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Instead, Petro insisted, "If the boats were carrying drugs as alleged by the U.S. government, their passengers were not drug traffickers; they were simply poor young people from Latin America who had no other option." He framed the strikes as a tragic consequence of U.S. drug policy, arguing that it unfairly targeted the most vulnerable.
The diplomatic row is the latest episode in a relationship that has grown increasingly fraught since Petro, a former Marxist guerrilla and Colombia’s first leftist leader, took office. Tensions spiked in January 2025, when then-President Trump threatened to impose 50% tariffs on all Colombian imports unless the country accepted military planes full of deported Colombians as part of a sweeping new deportation effort. Petro initially threatened to retaliate with counter tariffs, but eventually relented and allowed the flights to resume, a move that drew criticism from both his supporters and detractors back home.
April brought another twist, when Petro claimed that the Trump administration had revoked his U.S. travel visa, effectively barring him from attending meetings with international organizations in Washington, D.C. During a cabinet meeting, the Colombian president quipped, "They took away my visa. I didn’t need to have one, but anyway, I’ve already seen Donald Duck several times, so I’ll go see other things." The remark, reported by Fox News, was vintage Petro—sharp, irreverent, and pointedly political.
The latest visa revocation, however, has far more serious implications. By barring the head of state of one of its closest regional allies, the U.S. has sent a clear signal that it will not tolerate what it sees as incitement to disobedience or violence by foreign leaders on its soil. The move has drawn both praise and condemnation from across the political spectrum. Some in Washington have applauded the Trump administration’s swift action, arguing that Petro’s words represented a dangerous escalation and a breach of diplomatic norms. Others, including human rights advocates and some members of Congress, have expressed concern that the U.S. is overreacting and stifling legitimate dissent.
Meanwhile, in Colombia, reactions have been equally divided. Petro’s supporters see the visa revocation as evidence of U.S. overreach and a badge of honor for a president who is unafraid to challenge American power. Critics, however, argue that Petro’s confrontational style is needlessly provocative and risks isolating Colombia at a time when regional cooperation is desperately needed.
The broader context for this diplomatic clash is a shifting political landscape in Latin America, where left-leaning leaders have been increasingly willing to challenge U.S. policy on everything from drug enforcement to migration. Petro’s rhetoric, while unusually direct, echoes longstanding grievances in the region about the human cost of the U.S.-led war on drugs and the treatment of migrants. By calling for an international army "larger than that of the United States" and urging soldiers to "obey the order of humanity," Petro is tapping into a powerful current of anti-imperialist sentiment.
For the United States, the incident is a stark reminder of the complexities of managing relations with a changing Latin America. The Trump administration’s response—swift, public, and uncompromising—reflects both domestic political considerations and a desire to maintain discipline among its allies. Yet, as the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether this hardline approach will strengthen or further erode Washington’s influence in the region.
As of press time, the Colombian embassy had not responded to requests for comment. Videos of Petro’s speeches continue to circulate widely online, fueling debate in both countries about the limits of free expression, the responsibilities of public officials, and the future of hemispheric relations. One thing is certain: the diplomatic standoff between Washington and Bogotá shows no sign of cooling off anytime soon.
With passions running high and neither side backing down, the world will be watching to see what comes next in this high-stakes political drama.
