A brief standoff between President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro ended with Trump claiming victory Sunday night with the announcement that the South American country had agreed to accept its citizens deported on U.S. military planes. Though MAGA world had misconstrued Petro’s position as an opposition to deportation flights generally, he had objected to U.S. military planes being used. He had demanded that Colombian migrants be treated with dignity.
Though MAGA world had misconstrued Petro’s position as an opposition to deportation flights generally, he had objected to U.S. military planes being used.
“A migrant is not a criminal and must be treated with the dignity that a human being deserves,” Petro said in a post on X. “That is why I returned the U.S. military planes that were carrying Colombian migrants... In civilian planes, without being treated like criminals, we will receive our fellow citizens.”
For a fleeting moment, it looked like going after Trump was a political risk Petro was willing to take. Responding to Trump’s announcement that he’d put tariffs on Colombian imports that would start at 25% on all goods and quickly rise to 50% and the promise of a “Travel Ban and immediate Visa Revocations on the Colombian Government Officials, and all Allies and Supporters,” Petro responded on X that those sanctions “do not scare me” and said that Colombia is “not anyone’s colony.” At one point, Petro even equated Trump with a “white enslaver.”
“I resisted torture, and I will resist you,” Petro said at one point in Spanish. “I don’t want enslavers near Colombia. We’ve had enough, and we freed ourselves. What I want for Colombia are lovers of freedom. If you cannot stand beside me, I will turn elsewhere.”
He added: “You may kill me, but I will survive through my people, who existed before yours, in the Americas. We are the people of the winds, the mountains, the Caribbean Sea, and of freedom.”
But in the end, the lofty Latin American resistance rhetoric was for naught. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday that Colombia “has agreed to all of President Trump’s terms,” including the “unrestricted acceptance of all illegal aliens from Colombia returned from the United States, including on U.S. military aircraft, without limitation or delay.”
The Colombian government issued a face-saving statement claiming that its impasse with the United States had been resolved through diplomatic efforts. “We will continue to receive Colombians deported under conditions that guarantee dignity and respect as citizens with full rights,” part of the statement read.
Sunday must have been especially challenging for Latinos who said they voted for Trump believing he would improve the economy, and didn’t believe he would be this extreme this soon against their communities and the Latin American countries they share origins with.
The misinformation that the MAGA world was circulating Sunday — that Colombia was blocking deportation flights in general — was distressing but not surprising. To suggest that Colombia hasn’t been a willing partner in the long history of American immigration enforcement policy is laughable. According to the Department of Homeland Security, between 2014 and 2023, 22% of Colombian nationals encountered by U.S. immigration authorities were repatriated. Telemundo cited Witness at the Border tracking data that between 2020 and 2024, Colombia accepted 475 deportation flights, the fifth-most of any country.
In August, Colombia joined the United States and Panama in issuing a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to managing migration flows through the Darién Gap. This trilateral agreement emphasized collaborative efforts to enhance security and address irregular migration, underscoring Colombia’s ongoing role as a reliable partner.
Military deportations send an entirely different message, one that understandably stirs painful memories of U.S. interventionism in Latin America.
However, military deportations send an entirely different message, one that understandably stirs painful memories of U.S. interventionism in Latin America and undermines Colombia’s sovereignty.
Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, his state’s first Latino senator, posted during the Trump-Petro row: “Colombia has stopped millions of migrants from coming to the U.S. Trump’s strategy of antagonizing our allies is not smart policy—it just endangers decades of partnership with Colombia. We can’t act like this is some sort of 3D chess. This could’ve been handled with a simple phone call.”
But a “simple phone call” wasn’t what Trump or his supporters wanted. They wanted to resurrect the Monroe Doctrine and manifest destiny with flash, power and propaganda. They wanted to play the role of the tough, ugly American neighbor, vanquishing anyone perceived as weaker in the eyes of American imperialism and expansionism.
First, there’s the threat to take the Panama Canal. Then, the Gulf of Mexico being renamed the Gulf of America in an executive order. Now, there’s the bullying of Colombia.
And that’s Colombia, not Columbia, as the White House reportedly misspelled it in a press statement about the tariffs. Not spelling the country’s name correctly is another sign of disrespect.
By Sunday night, the White House was gloating about Colombia’s total capitulation. The message is clear: If you don’t submit to the Trump way, he will make sure to leave the door open to exert whatever pressure he can. “We’ve got a strong president willing to demand action. If they don’t act, then there’ll be consequences,” border czar Tom Homan told NBC News Sunday night.
The swiftness with which the Trump administration claimed victory underscores the enduring imbalance of power between the United States and Latin America.
Homan’s comments encapsulate the Trump administration’s strategy: force compliance through economic threats and public bluster, all while framing any resistance as a failure of the opposing government.
Petro’s words resonated with those who see the region as more than a pawn in America’s power plays. Yet, the swiftness with which the Trump administration claimed victory underscores the enduring imbalance of power between the United States and Latin America. For all Petro’s fiery words, the reality remains: resistance is costly, and in this case, Petro determined that his country couldn’t pay that price.
