Colombian President Gustavo Petro has said that Donald Trump told him directly he was considering “doing bad things in Colombia,” including a possible military operation, an allegation that underscores a period of acute tension between Bogotá and Washington. In an interview with El País, Petro said he genuinely feared that he could be captured in a manner similar to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, before a lengthy phone call with Trump appeared to halt what he believed was an imminent threat.
Petro said that in recent days he lived with the fear that an assault force could land on the roof of the Casa de Nariño, Colombia’s presidential palace, and detain him. Unlike Maduro, he noted, he had no bunker to flee to. The concern stemmed from months of hostile rhetoric from Trump, who has publicly described Petro as a drug addict, a thug, a trafficker and a front man for Maduro, and who revoked his U.S. visa after placing him on what Petro described as a Washington-linked red list tied to drug trafficking allegations.
According to Petro, the threat was defused during a one-hour phone call with Trump on Wednesday. Both leaders later described the conversation as cordial, and Petro told El País that the exchange “froze” the danger, even if it did not eliminate it entirely. He said Trump told him explicitly that preparations were under way for some form of action in Colombia. “We didn’t know what military action was being planned, only that one was underway,” Petro said, adding that Trump acknowledged he was thinking about taking drastic steps.
Petro said he did not reinforce his security, arguing that Colombia lacks air defense systems because its conflicts have historically been internal rather than involving foreign militaries. Instead, he said he relied on public mobilization, calling for demonstrations across the country as a form of “popular defense.” Rallies filled major squares earlier in the week, which Petro said showed that he retained the backing of the population.
In the interview with El País, Petro struck a noticeably softer tone toward Trump, dialing back his usual anti-imperialist rhetoric. He suggested that the two leaders share some pragmatic instincts, particularly on drug trafficking, and said Trump told him he understood what it was like to be targeted by false narratives. Petro argued that Trump had been influenced by hardline opposition voices based in Florida and had received misleading information about Colombia’s anti-narcotics policies.
The Colombian president, who has only eight months left in office, acknowledged that international affairs have increasingly occupied his attention as domestic pressures mount. His administration has been rocked by corruption cases involving former ministers now in prison, persistent violence despite peace negotiations with armed groups, and an economic emergency declared late last year to cover a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall ahead of elections.
Petro also addressed the regional implications of U.S. policy toward Venezuela, saying he had spoken with Delcy Rodríguez, who he described as Venezuela’s president in Maduro’s absence. He warned that imposing political outcomes from outside the country would deepen instability and argued instead for dialogue leading to free elections and a transitional, shared government. While he said U.S. positions on Venezuela were not entirely at odds with his own, he cautioned that unilateral interventions justified under U.S. law but rejected by international law could set dangerous global precedents.
Reflecting on his own political future, Petro said he had no intention of emulating former president Álvaro Uribe’s continued dominance of Colombian politics after leaving office. He said he planned to focus on writing and reading, insisting that the mass demonstrations in his support showed that talk of a political “twilight” was premature.
Despite the easing of tensions following his call with Trump, Petro made clear that the episode had exposed how vulnerable even elected leaders can feel in a volatile international environment. As he told El País, the experience reinforced his belief that presidents who fall out of alignment with powerful interests can quickly find themselves under existential threat.
