On January 6, 2026, Colombia's foreign minister issued a statement that would have been unthinkable just weeks earlier: the nation's military has a duty to defend the country's territory and sovereignty in the event of a U.S. invasion. The declaration formalized what President Gustavo Petro had said the previous day—that he would "take up arms again" to defend Colombia—and marked the most dramatic rupture in U.S.-Colombia relations since the two countries became strategic partners decades ago.
The crisis began not in Bogotá, but in Caracas. Following the U.S. military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in early January 2026, President Trump turned his attention southward. Aboard Air Force One on January 5, he described Petro as a "sick man who likes making cocaine" and responded to a question about military action in Colombia by saying it "sounded good to me." For a major non-NATO ally that has received billions in U.S. security assistance, the threat represented a fundamental betrayal of a partnership Washington once held as a cornerstone of regional policy.
The alliance under strain
The U.S.-Colombia relationship has long been defined by security cooperation, built on the foundation of Plan Colombia and sustained through decades of joint counter-narcotics operations. Washington designated Colombia a major non-NATO ally precisely because Bogotá aligned itself with U.S. strategic objectives in a region often skeptical of American military presence. That cooperation continued even as Trump explicitly threatened countries involved in drug trafficking with military strikes.
The ideological distance between Trump's populist-right administration and Petro's leftist government had created friction, but never of this magnitude. Petro, a former member of the M-19 guerrilla movement who demobilized in 1990 and entered democratic politics, has been critical of U.S. drug policy for years, arguing that militarized approaches fail to address the structural drivers of coca production. His administration has pursued alternative strategies focused on rural development and crop substitution, a departure from the eradication-focused model Washington has historically championed.
Yet despite these policy differences, bilateral security cooperation remained operational. Colombian and U.S. agencies continued to coordinate on interdiction efforts, intelligence sharing, and operations against trafficking networks. The relationship was strained, not broken—until Trump's threats forced Bogotá to confront a scenario no ally should have to contemplate.
Members are reading: How Trump's threats are forcing Colombia's U.S.-trained military into an impossible position and reshaping regional security calculations.
The collapse of institutionalized cooperation
The damage to U.S.-Colombia relations extends beyond immediate security concerns. Decades of institutional cooperation—joint task forces, intelligence fusion centers, training programs, and coordinated operations—now operate under the shadow of Washington's willingness to treat Bogotá as a potential military target. The trust required for effective partnership cannot survive when one party threatens invasion.
For Colombia, the crisis presents acute vulnerabilities. The country still faces significant internal security challenges, from dissident FARC factions to ELN guerrillas to powerful criminal organizations. U.S. support, while controversial, has been integral to Bogotá's capacity to address these threats. A rupture with Washington would leave gaps in intelligence, equipment, and operational support that cannot easily be replaced.
Yet Petro's government now faces a choice between maintaining that support and defending its sovereignty. Trump's threats have made these objectives mutually exclusive. By forcing this choice on a major ally, Washington has undermined its own strategic position in South America's third-largest economy and a critical node in hemispheric security architecture.
The broader risk is that Trump's militarized approach to the drug trade—using it as pretext for coercion and potential invasion—will destabilize the very governments Washington claims to support. Colombia's assertive response reflects not just Petro's politics, but a calculation that submission to threats would fatally undermine state legitimacy. When the United States treats allies as targets, it should not be surprised when they prepare to defend themselves.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
