Even though the diplomatic standoff that took place on Sunday between Colombia and the United States seems to have come to an end, the incident is likely to influence the way in which the Trump administration relates to some non-aligned Latin American countries going forward, according to a Colombian expert.
Speaking to The Latin Times, Manuel Camilo González Vides, a Colombian political analyst and head teacher of foreign affairs at Bogota's Universidad Javeriana, said that Colombian President Gustavo Petro "fell into Donald Trump's trap" by showing what can happen to a country if it defies his government in this area. He added that it also illustrated how Petro's impulsive behavior backfired as he put himself in an "unwinnable" situation, leading most in Colombia to believe Trump came out on top of the confrontation.
To recap, Colombian President Gustavo Petro denied entry to two U.S. military aircrafts carrying Colombian migrants early Sunday morning, demanding the U.S. establish protocols ensuring deportees are treated with dignity.
In retaliation, President Donald Trump announced emergency measures, including a 25% tariff on Colombian imports (set to rise to 50%), travel bans, visa revocations, and enhanced inspections of Colombian nationals and goods. Petro answered back by imposing reciprocal tariffs and criticizing U.S. policies, describing Trump as a "slaveholder" and pledging to resist.
By late Sunday, however, both countries had reached a resolution, with Colombia agreeing to accept deported nationals without restrictions and the U.S. suspending tariffs and sanctions, contingent on compliance. Petro even announced on Monday morning that he would use Colombia's presidential plane to transport deportees and reaffirmed his commitment to their dignified treatment.
Eyes now turn to the an emergency meeting of CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) which will take place on Thursday to talk about, among other topics, migration. The announcement was made on X by the organization's current Pro Tempore President, Honduras president Xiomara Castro, which will be coincidently handing the presidency over to Colombia´s Gustavo Petro. Castro also took the opportunity to point out that Petro would be in attendance:
Como Presidenta Pro Témpore (PPT) de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC), convoco con carácter urgente a una reunión de presidentes y jefes de Estado; próximo jueves 30 de enero a las 11:00 a.m. (hora de Honduras). pic.twitter.com/vEXCwCZBQl
— Xiomara Castro de Zelaya (@XiomaraCastroZ) January 26, 2025
In this context, González Vides discussed the event's optics both at the local and regional level, as well as what it could mean going forward.
The following interview has been translated to English and edited for clarity
The Latin Times: What are your conclusions around what has transpired in the last 24 hours between Colombia and the United States?
Manuel Camilo González Vides: First off, it's further evidence that the United States' foreign policy toward Latin American is taking on an aggressive tone. And this is not just because of what happened this weekend between the United States and Colombia. Two recent comments highlight this aggressive tone in U.S. policy. One came from Marco Rubio, who stated that every dollar spent on foreign policy should serve U.S. national interests. The second, even more telling, came from Donald Trump, who said that Latin America needs the U.S., whereas the U.S. does not need Latin America. This clearly shows the highly asymmetrical nature of the relationship. It is not a relationship based on cooperation but rather one based on imposing U.S. interests.
Second, Colombia fell into Donald Trump's trap by becoming the poster child for the repercussions a country will face if it refuses to comply with U.S. demands. Colombia has become a cautionary tale for other Latin American countries, showing that refusals to align with U.S. interests on any issue—not just migration—can lead to severe consequences, especially economic ones. This is not the Cold War anymore, when the U.S. would invade countries like Grenada or Panama. Instead, Trump now employs economic coercion rather than military force. The U.S. is attempting to reassert the region as its sphere of influence, not through investments the way China is doing but through force.
In this asymmetrical relationship, Colombia stands to lose. An economic confrontation with the U.S., unprecedented in our history, is unwinnable. This will also expose the fragility of Latin American unity.
-
Trump Crafting Asylum Deal With El Salvador To Send Deportees From Third Countries There
-
Cuba Halts Release of Political Prisoners And Conducts Military Drills After Trump Reinstates Terrorism Sponsor Designation
-
Trump Has Few Approaches Left To Put Pressure On Venezuela, Expert Says
-
Immigration Set To Be At The Center Of Marco Rubio's First Overseas Trip As Secretary Of State
How has Petro's response to this crisis being perceived within Colombia?
Manuel Camilo González Vides: I believe public opinion is deeply divided in Colombia. Nevertheless, comments are mostly negative, with many arguing that the president fell into what is known around here as "microphone diplomacy"—although in this case, it is more like "social media diplomacy." Petro's impulsive behavior, plus the atmosphere already brewing even before Trump took office—indicating an aggressive foreign policy—laid bear the Colombian government's lack of a preparation when it came to address such conflicts, leading the public to conclude that Petro mismanaged the situation.
Petro allowed himself to be provoked into a confrontation that cannot be won. Decisions were literally played out live on X (formerly Twitter), making this one of the most immediate, rapid, and informal foreign policy episodes in the history of both countries' bilateral relations.
However, a portion of the Colombian population continues to support Petro's government and remains loyal. I'd say it's around a third of the country. They see this as a vindication of the left and Latin America's fight on issues like migration. But I would argue that even this is questionable. Take Lula, for example, who approached these matters through diplomatic channels. Petro chose to confront Trump directly and publicly demanding more humane treatment for migrants. While this attitude helps consolidate Petro's electoral base, it also shows he hasn't learned anything from a seasoned political figure like Lula, who handled such situations more diplomatically and tactfully.
This all comes just days before Laura Sarabia, who many consider to be Petro's right-hand official, takes the reigns as Colombia's foreign affairs chief. How could this affect the start of her tenure?
Manuel Camilo González Vides: Colombia's foreign service has been is disarray for a while. First, there was the passport scandal that actually lead to the appointment of outgoing minister appointed Luis Gilberto Murillo, who eventually managed to resolve the issue. Then, there was the sensitive issue of Venezuela, where Colombia's stance has been ambiguous to put it mildly, especially compared to its now stern position against the U.S. Many feel this shows a double standard: Petro is lenient towards an authoritarian neighbor in Maduro while taking a harder line with one of the hemisphere's strongest democracies in the U.S.
This underscores the fragility of Colombia's global position because these decisions alienate it from U.S. trade and financial systems. These decisions cut off access to our main market, which accounts for a third of our exports. And this simply cannot be replaced overnight by China, with whom exports account for only 5%. After 200 years of being deeply dependent on the U.S., it's hard to pivot quickly.
That said, Sarabia's appointment could also be an opportunity. She is, after all, only 30 and has managed to steer Petro's cabinet so far. On the downside, the world of foreign policy could overwhelm her due to her lack of experience. Perhaps that experience could be applied to foreign relations but we'll have to wait and see.
How do you think relations between the two countries will evolve?
Manuel Camilo González Vides: I feel this sets a bad precedent: beginning the relationship with Donald Trump's administration on the wrong foot. A bad start usually leads to a bad ending. There's now concern that this precedent could impact U.S. foreign aid to Colombia, mainly the $380 million related to security and anti-narcotics efforts, as well as the $413 million from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This impasse could lead the Trump administration to view Colombia as an unreliable ally.
Furthermore, this administration may dismantle the myth that Colombia is the U.S.'s number-one strategic partner in the region. If we once believed we received substantial support because of our armed conflict and our consistent support for the U.S. in international forums, this moment marks a significant rupture in that narrative.
On the positive side, the new minister of foreign affairs team can still do a good job by, for example, improving the regularization of deportation flights to the country, establishing protocols to protect human rights, and safeguarding the economic aspects of the relationship.
© 2025 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
