If that were to happen, the Colombian revolution must explode
Petro claims ex-chancellor Leyva is coordinating with U.S. Republican congressman Mario Díaz-Balart to remove him from power through false accusations. Leyva published an eight-page letter to foreign ambassadors reiterating claims of presidential drug addiction without presenting evidence or specific incidents of consumption.
- Álvaro Leyva, Petro's former foreign minister, published an eight-page letter to foreign ambassadors accusing the president of drug addiction
- Petro accused Leyva of coordinating with U.S. Republican congressman Mario Díaz-Balart to orchestrate his removal from office
- Leyva provided no evidence, dates, or specific incidents of drug consumption in either of his two letters
- The dispute escalated on May 7, 2025, with Petro speaking at the presidential palace in Bogotá
President Gustavo Petro accused his former foreign minister Álvaro Leyva of participating in a U.S.-orchestrated plot to overthrow his government, escalating their public dispute over allegations of drug addiction.
The feud between Colombian President Gustavo Petro and his former foreign minister Álvaro Leyva has moved beyond private disagreement into public accusation of the gravest kind. On Tuesday, Petro stood in the courtyard of the presidential palace in Bogotá and told a gathering of vocational students that Leyva was part of a conspiracy—one orchestrated from Washington by Republican congressman Mario Díaz-Balart—to remove him from office. The accusation came hours after Leyva released an eight-page letter, this one addressed to foreign ambassadors accredited in Colombia, in which he reiterated claims he had first made on April 23: that the president was struggling with drug addiction and was therefore unfit to govern.
Leyva's second letter went further than the first. He wrote directly to Petro: "You are sick." He then catalogued what he described as erratic behavior toward foreign leaders and dignitaries—incidents spanning from Chile to Turkey, from Germany to China—suggesting a pattern of conduct inconsistent with presidential office. Notably, Leyva offered no evidence of drug use, no witnessed moments of consumption, no medical documentation. He named no specific dates or verifiable incidents. Petro has denied the addiction claims repeatedly but has not addressed the allegations of diplomatic rudeness.
At the palace, Petro was direct about what he believed was happening. Leyva, he said, was shopping his accusations to members of Congress's Accusations Commission, hoping to build a case for removal. Those behind the plot, Petro suggested, were growing desperate. The investigation into his 2022 campaign financing violations—a matter being examined by the National Electoral Council—had stalled. A change of strategy was needed. Enter Díaz-Balart, the Cuban-American congressman representing a heavily Hispanic district north and west of Miami, whom Petro described as "far-right" and as the architect of the meetings aimed at his overthrow.
Petro's language escalated quickly. He warned Díaz-Balart directly: "Do not try to bring down the president of Colombia, because you will unleash the Colombian revolution." He characterized the accusations as lies spread by "Nazis in the United States." The rhetoric was stark—not the language of a president confident in his institutional position, but of one convinced that forces beyond Colombia's borders were moving against him.
Díaz-Balart responded within hours. He echoed Leyva's claims, but with a cutting edge. He noted that Petro had misspelled his name in the warning message, then suggested the error itself was evidence: "Gustavo Petro seems to be under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both again." The congressman was turning Petro's own accusation back on him, using the president's mistake as proof of the very impairment Leyva had alleged.
What began as a dispute between a president and a former ally has now drawn in a foreign government official, creating a diplomatic dimension that complicates matters further. Leyva's decision to send his letter to ambassadors was deliberate—he was internationalizing the accusation, ensuring it would reach the capitals of Colombia's major trading partners and allies. Petro's response was to frame the entire affair as foreign interference, a plot hatched abroad to destabilize his government. Neither man has backed down. Neither has produced the evidence that might settle the question. The dispute has become a test of institutional resilience in Colombia, and a window into how deeply polarized the country has become.
Notable Quotes
You are sick, Mr. President Petro— Álvaro Leyva, in his second letter
Gustavo Petro seems to be under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both again— Mario Díaz-Balart, U.S. congressman, responding to Petro's accusations
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Leyva, who served as Petro's foreign minister, suddenly turn against him so publicly?
That's the question everyone is asking. The letters suggest a genuine break, but Leyva hasn't explained what triggered it. What we know is that he's making the most serious accusation possible—that the president is incapacitated by addiction. Whether that's rooted in something he witnessed or something else entirely, he hasn't said.
And Petro's response is to say this is all a foreign plot. Does that hold up?
It's a claim without evidence, just like Leyva's. But it's also a recognizable move—when you're under attack, you redirect attention outward, you name a foreign enemy. It's politically useful. Whether there's actual coordination between Leyva and Díaz-Balart, we don't know.
Díaz-Balart is a U.S. congressman. Why would he get involved in Colombian domestic politics?
He's Cuban-American, represents a Miami district, and has long been critical of leftist governments in Latin America. Petro is a former guerrilla, a socialist. There's ideological opposition there. But direct involvement in a plot? That's what Petro claims, not what's been demonstrated.
What does Leyva actually want? Is he trying to force Petro out?
The letter to ambassadors suggests he's trying to build international pressure. He's saying the president is unfit. But he's not calling for a coup or resignation explicitly. He's creating a record, making an accusation that others—in Congress, in other governments—might act on.
This seems destabilizing for Colombia.
It is. When a former foreign minister is publicly accusing the president of incapacity, and the president is accusing foreign powers of conspiracy, you're in territory where institutions are being tested. The question becomes whether Congress, the courts, or international actors believe one side or the other.