Tensions between President Donald Trump’s administration and Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s government have escalated in recent weeks, not only due to political and commercial differences but also through an open war of confrontational discourse.

Paradoxically, while the Trump administration demands that Petro moderate his rhetoric, it maintains its own discourse marked by insults, threats, and an aggressiveness that has provoked strong protests, especially in California and its capital, Los Angeles. In Trump’s case, his public statements have resulted in policies as aggressive as, or even more aggressive than, his speeches.

This contrast highlights the complexity of the diplomatic crisis between the two countries and opens a deep reflection on the role of rhetoric in contemporary politics.

Trump, throughout his term and even after assuming a second period, has spared no words to attack his critics and, in particular, migrants entering the United States. His rhetoric has fueled a climate of fear and confrontation, reflected in episodes such as the military intervention in California to contain massive protests in Los Angeles, partly caused by his immigration policies and threatening messages. In this context, the Trump administration’s demand that President Petro de-escalate his language is, at the very least, contradictory.

The Miguel Uribe Case

The most recent event that further strained the relationship was the shooting attack against Colombian Senator Miguel Uribe, a presidential hopeful and figure of the political right. Uribe was seriously injured during a campaign event in Bogotá, a fact that shocked the country and prompted immediate statements from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio held the Colombian government responsible for the attack due to its “violent leftist rhetoric,” stating that it was “a direct threat to democracy” and that words coming from the highest levels of Petro’s government are at the root of this violence. These statements, disseminated on social media, inflamed diplomatic tension and generated controversy over the political responsibility behind the attack.

Petro Government Responds

In response to these accusations, President Gustavo Petro reacted firmly, denouncing that extreme right-wing sectors both in Colombia and the United States were allegedly planning a coup against him. In a public event in Cali, Petro accused people linked to the extreme right of maintaining “fluid conversations” with Marco Rubio to orchestrate this conspiracy, although he did not detail the evidence.

These allegations come amid a domestic context marked by political violence, with multiple attacks by armed groups and extreme polarization. The opposition has called for a protest march this weekend, further worsening the climate of mutual distrust.

The Colombian Ambassador in Washington

Amid this verbal escalation, Colombian Ambassador to the United States Daniel García-Peña issued a strong letter in response to Marco Rubio, released by the Colombian Foreign Ministry. In the letter, García-Peña rejects the Secretary of State’s statements and details progress in the investigation of the attack against Uribe, highlighting the detention of a minor suspect and the deployment of over 250 investigators.

The letter emphasizes that the Colombian government has acted with the full weight of its institutions to clarify the incident, pointing out that the attack is part of a broader criminal conspiracy and cannot be simplistically attributed to political rhetoric. It also requests technical cooperation from the United States to trace the origin of the weapon and prosecute the intellectual authors.

This official pronouncement reflects Colombia’s willingness to confront violence with strong institutions and categorically rejects any attempt to politicize the tragedy for partisan purposes.

A Deteriorated Relationship

Differences between the governments of Petro and Trump are not recent. They have been marked by disputes over migration — especially Petro’s rejection of migrants traveling on military planes with shackles — Trump’s threat of tariffs, and Colombia’s decision to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has displeased Washington.

These divergences have cooled a historically close and allied relationship, with the United States as Colombia’s main commercial and strategic partner. The escalation of rhetoric has become a central element in the bilateral agenda, hindering cooperation on key issues such as security, trade, and the fight against drug trafficking.

A Call for Reason

In this game of cross accusations, a fundamental question arises: under current circumstances, who really has the moral and political authority to ask for moderation and de-escalation of rhetoric? The Trump administration, with a history of exaggerated, disparaging, and sometimes false speeches, cannot overlook its own responsibility in the domestic polarization of the United States and the international tension.

Furthermore, it is clear that governments worldwide today are unleashed in their narratives, often exaggerated and even false. It seems that sindéresis — that human capacity for prudent and moderate judgment — no longer appears politically effective. This phenomenon is alarming, as it erodes public trust, fosters social division, and puts the stability of peoples at risk.

For the region and the international community, the invitation is clear: recognize the gravity of political rhetoric and commit to responsible dialogue that allows tensions to be overcome without resorting to violence or misinformation. Governments must understand this and stop down the path of violent rhetoric and disinformation. At some point, there may be no turning back.