A long-awaited meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro took place on February 3, 2026, at the White House. The encounter, held after months of public disagreements and escalating tensions, signals a potential shift in the complex relationship between the two countries, a dynamic closely watched across the Americas.
Some supporters of Petro had framed the meeting as a challenge to U.S. Power, envisioning a scenario where the Colombian leader would engage with the American president as an equal. However, analysis suggests this perception was largely inaccurate. According to reports, a key outcome of the meeting involved Petro providing a list of individuals sought for extradition to the United States on charges related to drug trafficking – individuals whom Petro’s government had previously allowed to face justice in the U.S. Legal system.
Conversely, some on the Colombian right had anticipated a far more negative outcome, hoping to see Petro arrested and imprisoned in the United States. These expectations were also not met. The meeting’s relative success, despite years of escalating rhetoric, surprised many who had actively pushed for a more confrontational U.S. Policy toward Colombia.
Petro himself reportedly expressed some surprise at the meeting’s results, having prepared for a potentially unfavorable outcome. He even visited with family as a possible farewell before the meeting, anticipating a difficult resolution. He arrived at the White House on time, a departure from his usual schedule, seemingly preparing for any eventuality.
The apparent détente appears to be rooted in a degree of alignment and previously established relationships. Colombia has distanced itself from Venezuela, refrained from engaging with Cuba, and signaled a willingness to cooperate with U.S. Counterinsurgency efforts. This shift, coupled with a renewed focus on anti-drug policies and efforts to de-escalate tensions with Ecuador, appears to have paved the way for a more constructive dialogue with Washington. The development underscores a potential realignment of priorities within Petro’s administration.
Alignment of Interests
The change in tone from both presidents reflects factors beyond individual personalities. A broader “establishment” within both governments, operating as a cohesive unit, likely influenced the outcome. Both leaders, facing internal challenges, may have found that a show of cooperation on the international stage offered a valuable distraction and a means of projecting strength.
The alignment of interests is also driven by broader geopolitical concerns. Russia’s advances in Ukraine, Europe’s reluctance to fully align with Trump’s policies, and growing competition for resources in Greenland are all contributing to a sense of instability. Ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the unresolved situation in Venezuela add to the complex international landscape. China and Russia’s support for Cuba, despite U.S. Sanctions, also presents a challenge to American influence.
Petro’s position has been constrained by the situation in Venezuela and his desire to avoid a similar fate to that of Nicolás Maduro, who faces potential prosecution in the U.S. Concerns over his alleged links to the “Clinton List” and accusations of supporting “narco-guerrillas” have also likely influenced his approach. Regional forums like CELAC have been weakened by these divisions, hindering efforts to forge a unified Latin American stance independent of the United States.
Venezuelan oil resources have become a point of contention, impacting relations with Cuba, Mexico, and Colombia, and reinforcing U.S. Influence in the region. The situation has effectively re-established a pattern of dependence on the United States, accompanied by the threat of intervention against those who challenge its interests.
Both “Build America Great Again” and similar regional agendas are driven by a liberal, demo-republican right, self-described as progressive, that views the world through the lens of market forces. This pragmatic approach requires restoring U.S. Hegemony in the face of emerging competitors. Crisis and alignment are intertwined in this dynamic, defining the current state of U.S. Foreign policy and its impact on Colombia.
The New Diplomacy
The events of February 3, 2026, signal a new phase in diplomatic relations across the continent, characterized by a willingness to collaborate and subordinate national interests to those of the United States.
Progressive governments are increasingly focused on mitigating the negative impacts of U.S. Policies, particularly in the areas of trade and energy. With the reduction of economic aid and cooperation programs, the U.S. Is exerting pressure on dependent nations to gradually align with its agenda.
This new diplomacy has led to a “peaceful coexistence” with the U.S., prioritizing the avoidance of conflict and the suppression of historical grievances. The announcement could influence future diplomatic talks and regional stability.
The anti-imperialist stance once championed by progressive movements is waning, as leaders prioritize stability and avoid challenging U.S. Dominance. This shift explains the relative indifference towards Cuba and Venezuela and their ongoing struggles.
Continental Counterinsurgency
The effort to suppress revolutionary movements is being consolidated through a coordinated continental counterinsurgency strategy. With the Caribbean secured by the U.S. Navy and military forces deployed as needed, the expansion of U.S. Control is proceeding largely unchallenged.
Colombia’s renewed commitment to combating drug trafficking, both within its borders and abroad, is central to this strategy, potentially paving the way for extraterritorial military operations, particularly concerning Venezuela.
The shift from “Total Peace” to a “surgical” extraterritorial war represents a significant departure from Petro’s initial policy objectives, aligning his government with U.S. Imperial interests.
The Agreed Transition
Following the meeting between Trump and Petro, some observers suggest that recent decisions by Colombia’s National Electoral Council (CNE) to disqualify the Frente por la Vida coalition from participating in the March 8th consultation may be part of a broader, pre-arranged transition plan with the White House.
Iván Cepeda is not Petro’s preferred candidate, and his ties to the “santismo” – a reference to a political faction – have long been a factor in governing. Roy Barreras, meanwhile, has been positioned as a potential successor.
The White House reportedly sees no viable options within the Colombian far-right, deeming its candidates too unreliable to advance U.S. Interests. A centrist alternative is also considered unlikely. The santismo, having successfully navigated the international arena and played a key role in facilitating the Trump-Petro meeting, is now poised to reshape the progressive movement and capture its electoral base.
Colombia is now divided between two visions of progressivism: the continuity represented by Iván Cepeda and the renewal offered by Roy Barreras. The right-wing is attempting to co-opt the progressive agenda, filling its ideological and programmatic voids with a mixed-economy model designed to serve the interests of both domestic and foreign capital. This transition, it appears, is well underway.
Rebelión has published this article with the permission of the author through a Creative Commons license, respecting its freedom to publish it in other sources.
