Get your hands off Latin America and stop setting the region on fire
When a powerful nation reaches across borders to anoint a favored candidate, it does not merely influence an election — it challenges the very idea that a people can govern themselves. Donald Trump's endorsement of ultraright Colombian presidential hopeful Abelardo De la Espriella has drawn fierce condemnation from former Colombian president Ernesto Samper and others who see in this gesture a familiar imperial reflex, dressed in modern clothing. With a June 21 runoff approaching, Colombia finds itself at the intersection of domestic choice and hemispheric politics, forced to ask whether sovereignty is truly its own to exercise.
- Trump's declaration of 'total support' for De la Espriella landed in Colombia like a provocation, instantly framing the presidential runoff as a contest between national autonomy and foreign imposition.
- Ernesto Samper led a chorus of condemnation, arguing that Trump's endorsements across Argentina, Ecuador, Honduras, and Chile reveal a coordinated strategy to restore right-wing, Washington-aligned governments throughout Latin America.
- President Gustavo Petro reinforced the message from within the government itself, urging Colombians to vote freely and reject the logic of subordination to any outside power.
- Samper called on Trump to withdraw from Latin American affairs entirely, warning that fanning ideological conflict in the region amounts to setting it on fire for geopolitical gain.
- With the June 21 runoff between De la Espriella and leftist Iván Cepeda now charged with symbolic weight, Samper has recast the vote as an act of democratic self-defense against neocolonial interference.
Donald Trump's endorsement of ultraright Colombian presidential candidate Abelardo De la Espriella has provoked a sharp political backlash, with former president Ernesto Samper leading the charge against what he called an 'abusive intervention' in Colombian affairs. Samper, who governed Colombia from 1994 to 1998, argued that Trump's move is not an isolated act but part of a deliberate pattern — pointing to U.S.-aligned right-wing figures who have risen to power in Argentina, Ecuador, Honduras, and Chile as evidence of a broader neocolonial strategy.
For Samper, the deeper danger lies in what follows such endorsements: neoliberal reforms that burden ordinary citizens, hostility toward progressive movements, and a regional political landscape he described as darkened by Washington's meddling. He invoked the Monroe Doctrine as the ideological ancestor of Trump's approach, framing it as an assertion of American dominance over a hemisphere that has long struggled to define its own path.
His message to Trump was blunt — step back, focus on your own country, and stop inflaming a region that deserves to determine its own future. President Gustavo Petro echoed the sentiment, insisting that Colombians must vote in complete freedom, beholden to no foreign power.
The immediate test arrives on June 21, when Colombia holds a runoff between De la Espriella and leftist Iván Cepeda. Samper urged voters to choose Cepeda not simply as a political preference, but as a sovereign act — a collective refusal to let Washington write Colombia's story. Whether Trump's endorsement shifts votes remains uncertain, but the controversy has already clarified something larger: across Latin America, the memory of intervention runs deep, and the appetite for it has not grown.
Donald Trump's endorsement of Abelardo De la Espriella, an ultraright candidate in Colombia's presidential race, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from across the country's political establishment. The U.S. president's declaration of "total support" for De la Espriella was framed by opponents as a brazen attempt to shape the outcome of an election that does not belong to him—a move that former president Ernesto Samper Pizano called nothing short of an "abusive intervention" in his nation's affairs.
Samper, who served as Colombia's president from 1994 to 1998, took to social media to voice what many others in Colombian politics were already saying: that Trump's behavior represents a dangerous pattern of meddling across Latin America. The former leader pointed to similar endorsements in Argentina, where Javier Milei now governs; in Ecuador under Daniel Noboa; in Honduras with Nasry Asfura; and in Chile, where José Antonio Kast has gained influence. Each of these figures represents a rightward shift in their respective countries, and Samper argued that Trump's backing of such candidates amounts to an attempt to resurrect a neocolonial order—one in which Latin American nations serve as subordinates to Washington rather than as sovereign states.
What troubles Samper most is not merely the endorsement itself, but what he sees as a deliberate strategy to destabilize the region. He characterized Trump's approach as a more aggressive application of the Monroe Doctrine, the 19th-century U.S. policy that asserted American dominance over the Western Hemisphere. The consequences, Samper argued, have been severe: the rise of right-wing governments has "darkened the political landscape" across the region, leading to the implementation of neoliberal reforms that harm ordinary citizens and fuel hostility toward leftist and progressive movements. He invoked Venezuela and Cuba as cautionary examples of how such interference can poison hemispheric relations.
Samper's message to Trump was unambiguous: "Get your hands off Latin America and stop setting the region on fire." He demanded that the U.S. president focus on his own country's problems and leave Latin Americans to determine their own political futures. This call for non-interference resonated with other voices in Colombia's government and opposition, including President Gustavo Petro, who emphasized that Colombians must vote "in complete freedom" and refuse to become "slaves or colonies of anyone."
The stakes are immediate and concrete. Colombia faces a runoff election on June 21 between De la Espriella, the right-wing candidate backed by Trump, and Iván Cepeda, a leftist politician supported by the sitting president Petro. Samper used his platform to urge Colombians to vote for Cepeda as an act of democratic sovereignty—a direct rebuke to foreign interference. He framed the choice not merely as a preference between two candidates, but as a defense of national autonomy itself. For Samper, the best answer to Trump's arrogance would be for Colombian voters to choose the candidate Trump opposed, thereby asserting their right to make their own decisions without Washington's guidance.
The controversy has exposed a broader anxiety in Latin America about the return of U.S. interventionism. Samper's criticism, joined by diplomatic officials and moderate opposition figures, reflects a consensus that electoral integrity depends on keeping foreign powers—especially a U.S. president with a history of meddling—out of the process. Whether Trump's endorsement will actually influence Colombian voters remains to be seen, but the backlash has made clear that many in the region view such interference as a threat not just to one election, but to the entire project of Latin American self-determination.
Citas Notables
The best answer Colombians can give to this abusive intervention is to vote for the sovereignty of our country in the person of Iván Cepeda, who has the personal and moral qualities to continue representing us as president.— Ernesto Samper
Vote in complete freedom and do not become slaves or colonies of anyone.— President Gustavo Petro
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Samper see Trump's endorsement as part of a larger pattern rather than just one candidate's preference?
Because Trump has done this before—in Argentina, Ecuador, Honduras, Chile. It's not random. It's a strategy. When you see the same president backing right-wing candidates across an entire region, you're looking at something systematic, not just a personal opinion.
What does Samper mean by calling it a return to neocolonialism?
He's saying that instead of direct military occupation like in the old days, the new method is political control—backing candidates who will implement policies favorable to U.S. interests, especially neoliberal economics that benefit corporations over ordinary people.
But doesn't every country have the right to express preferences about other countries' elections?
In theory, yes. But there's a difference between expressing a view and a sitting president actively endorsing a candidate to shape an election's outcome. One is speech; the other is interference. Samper sees Trump crossing that line.
Why is the June 21 runoff so important to Samper's argument?
Because it's happening now. This isn't abstract. Colombian voters are about to choose, and Trump just tried to influence that choice. Samper is saying: prove your sovereignty by voting the way you want, not the way Washington wants.
What's the risk if De la Espriella wins despite the backlash?
Then Trump's strategy works. It validates the idea that U.S. endorsement can swing elections. It also means Colombia shifts right, implementing policies Samper believes will hurt working people and deepen inequality.
Is Samper's call for non-interference realistic, or is he asking for something impossible?
He's asking for something that should be basic—that powerful countries respect the sovereignty of weaker ones. Whether it's realistic depends on whether Colombians care enough about that principle to vote accordingly.