Tensions between the United States and Colombia have escalated sharply after Colombian President Gustavo Petro said he would “take up arms again” if the US launched an attack on his country, responding to a warning from US President Donald Trump that Colombia could be “next” after Washington’s military operation in neighbouring Venezuela.
The confrontation followed comments Trump made to reporters aboard Air Force One in which he accused Petro of running what he described as cocaine production facilities and suggested Colombia could face US military action similar to the operation that removed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from power. Trump said Petro should “wise up” and warned that he “might be next”.
Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president and a former member of the now-demobilised M-19 guerrilla movement, rejected the accusation and framed Trump’s remarks as a direct threat to Colombian sovereignty. In a public response, Petro said he had once renounced violence but would return to armed resistance if the country were invaded, describing the prospect of foreign intervention as the kind of conflict that could draw thousands into guerrilla warfare in Colombia’s mountains.
“I am not going to kneel down,” Petro said, adding that if there was a US attack, he would “take up arms again”. He also warned that “the guerrilla in Colombia would have 10,000 or 100,000 fighters”.
The exchange has alarmed officials across Colombia’s political spectrum, where the idea of a US attack on a long-time regional partner is viewed as a dramatic departure from the relationship that has defined US-Colombian cooperation for decades. Colombia has been a key US ally in Latin America, particularly through security assistance and counter-narcotics programmes dating back to Plan Colombia, even as the country has remained a major producer of coca leaf, the raw material for cocaine.
Petro’s government has pursued a strategy it calls “total peace”, seeking negotiated demobilisation of armed groups and shifting drug policy emphasis towards targeting high-level trafficking networks and reducing rural violence rather than relying solely on forced eradication. Petro has repeatedly argued that the US-led “war on drugs” has failed, while also insisting that his administration has conducted major seizures and interdictions.
In the latest row, Petro said Trump’s comments were not only unfounded but also ignored Colombia’s own actions against drug trafficking. He referenced large cocaine seizures and rejected the idea that Colombia’s head of state was operating drug laboratories, a claim for which no evidence was presented publicly in Trump’s remarks.
Trump’s warning came in the immediate aftermath of the US military operation in Venezuela, which Washington has described as a targeted action against Maduro’s leadership. The legality of the operation and the circumstances of Maduro’s removal have been questioned by legal experts and analysts, and the events have heightened fears in the region that the US could broaden its military footprint in northern South America.
In Colombia, the government moved quickly to address security concerns. The country’s defence ministry announced that Petro’s security detail had been reinforced, amid heightened anxiety over potential instability and the possibility of retaliatory threats or internal unrest triggered by the international crisis.
The diplomatic clash also sits within a broader breakdown in relations between Petro and Trump. Colombian officials and international observers have pointed to a deepening rift since Trump returned to office, with disputes over drug policy, regional security and rhetoric about left-wing governments in Latin America. According to reports citing Colombian officials, Petro’s US visa was revoked in recent months, and Washington has also imposed measures targeting figures close to the Colombian president, further fuelling political tensions between the two countries.
Petro has sought to portray himself as standing firm against external pressure, using nationalist language and warning of the human cost of any conflict. His comments drew attention because they invoked Colombia’s long history of insurgency and civil conflict, a period that left hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. Although Colombia signed a landmark peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, in 2016, armed violence persists in parts of the country, driven by splinter groups, the ELN guerrilla movement, and criminal organisations involved in drug trafficking and illegal mining.
Petro’s own past has been a focal point in both domestic politics and international perceptions. He joined the M-19 movement as a young man and later entered institutional politics after the group laid down arms and demobilised in 1990, a transition that eventually saw him serve as a congressman and mayor of Bogotá before winning the presidency in 2022.
In his response to Trump, Petro drew on that history, presenting his earlier armed involvement as something he had left behind, while arguing that an invasion would force him and others into resistance. His remarks were interpreted by supporters as a warning of national defence, while critics argued that the rhetoric risked inflaming tensions and creating the kind of polarisation that could destabilise the country.
Trump, for his part, has framed his posture as part of a tougher regional strategy, with the Venezuela operation presented as a signal to governments accused by Washington of corruption or complicity in drug trafficking. In the Air Force One exchange, he suggested Petro was vulnerable to similar action and indicated that the United States would not tolerate what he described as threats to its interests.
There has been no public evidence released to support Trump’s allegation that Petro runs cocaine laboratories. Petro’s government has denied any such involvement and has pointed to Colombia’s institutions, including law enforcement and judicial bodies, as evidence that the country remains a constitutional democracy with checks and balances.
The immediate risk of military confrontation remains unclear, and no formal US plan to strike Colombia has been announced. But the language used by both leaders has intensified international concern, with analysts warning that a continued cycle of threats and escalatory rhetoric could unsettle the region and undermine already fragile peace and security dynamics inside Colombia.
For many Colombians, the exchange revived fears of a return to the darkest chapters of the country’s conflict, when insurgent recruitment surged and state forces fought prolonged wars in rural areas. Petro’s warning that an invasion could swell guerrilla ranks appeared designed to remind Washington that Colombia’s geography and history make it a difficult theatre for foreign military intervention.
The dispute also raises questions about the future of US-Colombia cooperation, including intelligence sharing, counternarcotics assistance and regional security coordination, at a time when migration, organised crime and political instability remain key issues across Latin America.
As both governments assess their next steps, the crisis has already shifted the tone of hemispheric relations, with Colombia’s president publicly invoking armed resistance and the US president floating the prospect of expanding military action beyond Venezuela.
