By Aisha Muhammad Magaji
The Biden administration is reportedly weighing the possibility of revoking the U.S. visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro, following a series of remarks and actions Washington has described as “incendiary” and damaging to bilateral relations. If enforced, it would mark an unprecedented step against a sitting South American leader and further complicate relations between Bogotá and Washington.
Sources within the U.S. State Department told The Washington Post that President Petro’s recent comments on the Israel-Gaza conflict, his alignment with leftist regimes in the region, and controversial domestic decisions have strained trust with Washington.
Petro, a former guerrilla fighter and Colombia’s first left-wing president, has been outspoken in condemning Israel’s military operations in Gaza, calling them “genocidal.” He has also accused Western powers of double standards in their response to global conflicts.
“The United States cannot stand by when a partner nation’s leader uses rhetoric that undermines peace, fuels division, and threatens our shared security interests,” a U.S. official was quoted as saying.
President Petro, in response, has doubled down on his rhetoric. In a speech in Bogotá on Tuesday, he argued that Colombia has a sovereign right to speak out against what he calls “global injustices.”
“If defending the oppressed, if raising our voice for Gaza, for the poor, for Latin America, costs me a visa to the United States, so be it. Colombia is not a colony,” Petro declared to loud applause from supporters.
He further accused Washington of trying to “silence progressive voices” in Latin America.
Revoking the visa of a sitting president would be an extraordinary move. Typically, diplomatic channels are used to manage disagreements with heads of state. Analysts say the consideration of such a measure highlights the depth of U.S. frustration with Petro.
Dr. Ana María Restrepo, an international relations expert at Universidad de los Andes, said the situation is “without precedent in U.S.-Colombia relations.”
“Even during moments of tension in the 1980s over the drug wars, Washington never considered such a drastic step against Bogotá’s leadership. It reflects how Petro’s ideological positioning is clashing with long-standing strategic ties,” she explained.
The United States remains Colombia’s largest trading partner and a key ally in security cooperation, particularly in counter-narcotics operations. Any rupture in relations could destabilize years of collaboration.
Washington currently provides Colombia with nearly $500 million annually in aid for security, development, and governance programs. Experts warn that the fallout from a diplomatic rift could jeopardize these funds and hamper joint initiatives.
In recent months, U.S. officials have already expressed unease over Petro’s warming ties with Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, both of whom are at odds with Washington.
Reactions at home have been polarized. Petro’s supporters argue that the president is standing up to U.S. hegemony and defending Colombia’s independence.
“President Petro is right. We cannot be silent when powerful nations commit atrocities abroad. If the U.S. is offended, that is their problem,” said Juan Carlos Rueda, a Bogotá-based activist.
But critics warn that Petro’s rhetoric risks isolating Colombia at a time when its economy is already under strain.
“Colombia cannot afford a diplomatic crisis with its main partner,” said Senator Paloma Valencia, a prominent opposition figure. “Petro’s irresponsible words are putting trade, investment, and security cooperation at risk.”
While no final decision has been announced, U.S. officials confirmed that all options remain “on the table.” The State Department has the authority to revoke visas under Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, though such measures are rarely applied to sitting heads of state.
If Washington proceeds, it would effectively bar Petro from entering the United States for official or personal purposes, potentially undermining his ability to attend multilateral forums such as the United Nations General Assembly.
For now, Colombian diplomats are lobbying behind the scenes to defuse tensions. The Foreign Ministry issued a cautious statement, saying it “values Colombia’s long-standing partnership with the United States” and is committed to dialogue.
The development has drawn attention across Latin America, where leaders from Brazil, Mexico, and Bolivia have voiced solidarity with Petro.
Bolivian President Luis Arce called the potential visa revocation “an unacceptable attempt to intimidate Latin American sovereignty,” while Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador urged Washington to “respect democratic leaders even when they disagree.”
The standoff between Washington and Petro underscores the delicate balance between diplomacy and ideology in Latin America. If the U.S. follows through on its threat, it risks fueling anti-American sentiment in the region and emboldening Petro’s narrative of resistance.
For Colombia, the challenge lies in navigating the fallout without jeopardizing vital ties that underpin its economy and security. As one Bogotá-based analyst put it: “Petro may gain applause at home and abroad for his defiance, but the cost of confrontation with Washington could be heavy.”
