I did not hand Colombia's flag to Donald Trump
Trump publicly backed right-wing candidate De la Espriella, calling him an intelligent and strong leader who would promote economic growth and combat crime. Petro alleged Trump broke a February commitment to not interfere in Colombian affairs, framing foreign intervention as a threat to national sovereignty and democratic freedom.
- Trump endorsed right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella on June 3, calling him intelligent and strong
- Petro claims Trump violated a non-intervention agreement made during their February 3 White House meeting
- Colombian runoff election scheduled for June 21 between de la Espriella and Petro's candidate Iván Cepeda
- U.S.-Colombia tensions have escalated since January 2025 over deportations, drug certification, and sanctions
Colombian President Petro criticized Trump for endorsing opposition candidate De la Espriella in the June 21 runoff, claiming the U.S. leader violated a non-intervention agreement made during their February White House meeting.
On Tuesday, Colombian President Gustavo Petro took to social media to accuse Donald Trump of breaking a promise. The American president had just publicly endorsed Abelardo de la Espriella, the right-wing candidate facing Petro's preferred choice in Colombia's presidential runoff scheduled for June 21. Trump had called de la Espriella—nicknamed "El Tigre"—an intelligent, strong, and decisive leader who would drive economic growth, create jobs, fight crime and drug trafficking, and restore law and order. For Petro, the endorsement was not merely a political statement. It was, he argued, a betrayal of a specific agreement.
Petro's response was sharp and direct. "When one country intervenes in the decisions of another, freedom dies," he wrote on X, calling on all Colombians to vote "in complete freedom" and not become "slaves or colonies of anyone." Later, speaking to the state broadcaster RTVC, he was even more explicit: Trump had violated a commitment made during their face-to-face meeting at the White House on February 3. "He betrays the agreement he made with me, which was not to intervene in Colombia," Petro said. "He must leave the Colombian people free to vote, to choose. I did not hand Colombia's flag to Donald Trump."
The timing of Trump's endorsement was notable. It came hours after Colombia's electoral authority confirmed that official vote tallies matched preliminary counts from the first round, in which de la Espriella had secured the most votes, with Petro's candidate, Iván Cepeda, finishing second. Trump's statement on his Truth Social platform praised de la Espriella's "overwhelming victory" and framed the June 21 runoff as crucial not just for Colombia's future but for the bilateral relationship with the United States.
Petro also raised other grievances during his RTVC interview. He questioned why U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno, who is of Colombian descent, had been present during the May 31 voting. He suggested that foreign sectors had attempted to influence Colombian political debate. He noted that the United States had imposed restrictions on his activities when he traveled to New York to assume the presidency of the UN Security Council—a sign, he implied, of deeper rifts between the two governments.
The tensions between Bogotá and Washington have been building for more than a year. The first major crisis erupted in early 2025 when Petro's government refused to accept U.S. military flights carrying deported Colombian citizens, arguing they were being transported in inhumane conditions. Washington responded with threats of economic sanctions and tariffs. Disputes over drug enforcement followed, escalating to the point where the Trump administration stripped Colombia of its certification as a cooperating nation in the fight against narcotics and imposed sanctions on Colombian officials, including Petro himself.
A February meeting between the two presidents had seemed to ease the temperature. But Trump's public backing of de la Espriella has reignited the friction at a critical moment—just weeks before Colombians return to the polls. Petro made clear he does not intend to play a prominent role in campaigning for Cepeda, his own government's candidate. The question now is whether this latest diplomatic flare-up will influence how voters decide between the two finalists on June 21, and whether the relationship between Washington and Bogotá can recover once the election is over.
Notable Quotes
When one country intervenes in the decisions of another, freedom dies. I invite all Colombia to vote in complete freedom and not become slaves or colonies of anyone.— President Gustavo Petro, on social media
He betrays the agreement he made with me, which was not to intervene in Colombia. He must leave the Colombian people free to vote, to choose.— President Gustavo Petro, in an interview with RTVC
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Petro see Trump's endorsement as a betrayal of a specific agreement rather than just normal political support?
Because they had a conversation in February where, according to Petro, Trump explicitly promised not to meddle in Colombian internal affairs. An endorsement four months later reads as a broken word, not just a preference.
Is there a real non-intervention tradition between these countries, or is Petro invoking something that doesn't formally exist?
It's more about what was said in that room. Petro is treating it as a binding commitment. Whether Trump saw it the same way is unclear, but from Petro's perspective, the agreement was real enough to be betrayed.
Why would Trump endorse de la Espriella so publicly and so soon after the first round?
De la Espriella is right-wing, pro-business, and likely to align with Trump on drug enforcement and trade. Petro has been difficult—refusing deportation flights, clashing over narcotics policy. Trump may see this as a chance to shape Colombia's direction.
Does Petro's complaint about Senator Moreno being present during voting suggest he thinks the U.S. is actively rigging the election?
He's not claiming outright rigging. He's pointing to a pattern—a senator present, Trump endorsing, restrictions on his own movements. It reads as coordinated pressure rather than interference in the mechanics of voting itself.
What's at stake for Petro if de la Espriella wins?
A government that will likely reverse his policies, align more closely with Washington, and probably pursue more aggressive drug enforcement strategies. It's not just political loss—it's ideological defeat on his own terms.