ђ
The capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by U.S. authorities in the early hours of January 3, 2026, has sparked intense debate among Colombian presidential hopefuls. The arrests, carried out under the direction of President Donald Trump, have prompted analysis of the situation’s impact on bilateral relations between Bogotá and Washington.
Trump’s statements included warnings directed at other Latin American governments, specifically mentioning Colombia due to its strained relationship with President Gustavo Petro. The U.S. president asserted his administration was reasserting a central role in the region and would take a firm stance against threats related to drug trafficking and armed groups.
Now, candidates vying to lead Colombia are weighing in on the developments. Their perspectives emerged during interviews with Noticias Caracol, where each presented their interpretation of the regional situation and its potential effects on Colombian foreign policy.
Juan Manuel Galán, leader of the New Liberalism movement and a potential candidate in the upcoming presidential race, emphasized the importance of considering the shared territorial dynamics between Colombia and Venezuela. “First, we need to think about cross-border relations,” he stated. His approach centers on strengthening state presence along the border and prioritizing security, particularly the protection of civilians and the dismantling of illegal armed groups.
Galán further elaborated, arguing that Colombian foreign policy should differentiate between bilateral relations and cross-border dynamics. “Colombia must support all efforts toward a democratic transition, a peaceful transition, and a transition through free and fair elections in Venezuela,” he said.
Former Senator David Luna, a presidential candidate representing the Cambio Radical party, described Maduro’s arrest as a significant development for the region. “I believe it’s good news that the dictator Nicolás Maduro has been captured,” he said during the interview.
Luna focused his analysis on the potential impact on drug trafficking dynamics and security conditions along the Colombia-Venezuela border. He also cautioned about the economic risks stemming from a diplomatic crisis, particularly for Colombian export sectors.
“Everyone is analyzing the situation in Venezuela, but no one has taken the time to ask the Venezuelans how they are feeling,” Luna noted, proposing an approach that prioritizes the Venezuelan people.
Regarding Colombia’s relationship with the United States, he warned, “I hope it is understood that we are on the verge of an electoral process in Colombia, where a congress and a new president will be elected in March and May. And I hope that those elected, hopefully myself, will restore a diplomacy that builds, not destroys, and understands that dialogue is the key to improving relations between countries. The Colombian electoral process must be protected from the influence of drug trafficking.”
Former Bogotá Mayor Enrique Peñalosa focused his analysis on the internal situation in Venezuela and its historical repercussions for Colombia. “There was a dictatorship that was supported, not by votes, but by the force of the police and the military,” he asserted. He linked state support within Venezuela to the activity of illegal armed groups on Colombian territory.
Peñalosa connected the Venezuelan government to violence in Colombia, stating, “These gentlemen… were attacking Colombia. These gentlemen have been supporting illegal armed groups in Colombia, which are causing terrible damage along the border with Venezuela, in the Serranía del Perijá, in Catatumbo, in Arauca.” He argued that this support directly impacted security in border areas.
“The reality is that this is good for Colombia, for democracy,” Peñalosa stated. “It’s a dictatorship that could not be changed through good means.”
Peñalosa criticized comments made by President Petro and Senator Iván Cepeda regarding international intervention, stating, “It’s absurd that we now come to criticize international intervention, as Cepeda and Petro are doing, because beyond the legal arguments, the reality is that the Venezuelan people were oppressed.”
Presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella openly supported the U.S. operation, framing it as a legal matter with regional implications. “I am elated and happy about the capture of one of the most dangerous criminals in the world, the head of the Cartel of the Suns, a drug lord who has oppressed his people and generated the diaspora of more than eight million Venezuelans, who has kidnapped opponents who are still being held,” he said.
De la Espriella described the Venezuelan regime as enabling corruption and stated, “He ruined a country with all the wealth in the world and allowed corruption to take over all levels.” He insisted the U.S. action was not a military intervention. “What happened in Venezuela is not an invasion, as the Petro supporters want to portray it. It is the capture of an international criminal,” he said. “A judicial order was fulfilled, and an international criminal was captured.”
“I believe that what has happened is good for Colombia,” he added. “It’s a dictatorship that could not be changed peacefully.”
Former Interior Minister and presidential candidate Daniel Palacios attributed the strained relationship with the United States directly to the current Colombian government under President Gustavo Petro. “The problem here is a problem that Gustavo Petro invented, trying to play the role of a universal leader, getting involved in fights that are not his,” he stated.
Palacios argued that the current administration’s foreign policy was driven by personal decisions. “There is no reason for Colombia and the United States to be in a situation of antagonism,” he said, adding that increased drug production and security concerns were also linked to the government’s policies.
Presidential candidate Santiago Botero viewed the events in Venezuela through an economic lens, suggesting the operation was driven by former President Trump’s business-oriented approach. “I believe President Trump demonstrates clearly that he is a business president, unlike political presidents,” he said. He argued the decisions were tied to economic objectives, stating, “I feel that’s what President Trump did, fulfilling what he promised Americans during the campaign.”
Botero proposed a pragmatic approach to diplomacy, suggesting Colombia could benefit from increased trade with Venezuela during a potential transition. “If I were president and President Trump does what he did in Venezuela, I would tell President Trump, ‘Look, Colombians are ready to help you extract that oil,’” he said, suggesting economic benefits for Colombia.
