The historical relationship between the United States (U.S.) and Colombia was once shaped by comprehensive military, economic, and strategic programs that strengthened anti-drug cooperation and regional security partnership. The U.S. military intervention in Venezuela has been evaluated not only as a regime change attempt centered on Caracas in Latin America, but also as a turning point that re-legitimized the use of force in Washington’s approach to regional crises. After this intervention, the increasing visibility of tension between the U.S. and Colombia reopened the debate on Bogotá’s position within the regional security architecture. In particular, the position of the Gustavo Petro administration, which overlaps less and less with U.S. foreign policy priorities, has weakened Colombia’s traditional status as a “reliable ally”; this situation has brought to the agenda the possibility that Colombia could become the next country exposed to U.S. pressure or intervention tools following the Venezuela example. In this framework, U.S.-Colombia relations can be reread not as a classic bilateral alliance, but rather as an extension of the U.S.’s security-centered regional order design toward Latin America.
The most concrete example of the security-centered relationship between these two states is Plan Colombia, which started in the early 2000s.[1] Plan Colombia was designed as a comprehensive security program in which the United States provided Colombia with military training, weapons systems, intelligence support, and economic aid. The official goals of the program were to reduce coca cultivation, limit drug trafficking, and weaken armed groups such as FARC and ELN. However, in practice, Plan Colombia made the Colombian Army aligned with U.S. military doctrine and placed the country’s security policies within a Washington-centered framework. This process increased the U.S.’s military and political influence in the region while creating an effect that limited Colombia’s strategic autonomy.
The historical context in which Plan Colombia emerged is directly related to the U.S.’s interventionist tradition toward Latin America. Since the Cold War, Washington has defined the region as a geopolitical sphere of influence; as seen in cases such as Chile, Bolivia, and Central America, it has prioritized securing its interests through regime changes and military interventions. This approach can be considered an updated interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine and shows that the U.S. still sees Latin America as a strategic backyard. Within this historical framework, Colombia was positioned for a long time not as a target of U.S. interventions, but as a supporting element of these interventions.
However, in recent years, this traditional role has started to be questioned. Especially with the rise to power of Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s tendency to follow a more autonomous line in the fight against drugs, energy policies, and foreign relations has created discomfort in Washington. While the Petro administration argues that the drug problem should be addressed mainly through social and economic policies, it has shown a clear divergence from the U.S.’s security-centered and military-focused strategies. This situation has led Colombia to be increasingly perceived by the U.S. as an ally with “compatibility problems.”
This tension became even sharper together with the re-emerging rhetoric of Donald Trump. Trump’s description of Colombia for some time as one of the centers of the global drug trade, his use of harsh expressions directly targeting Petro such as calling him an “illegal drug leader,” and his decision to suspend U.S. aid have made the structural rupture in the relations visible.[2] This discourse not only framed Colombia as a security problem, but also produced a narrative through which the U.S. could legitimize harsher policy tools.
In 2026, the U.S. military intervention against Venezuela constituted a critical turning point in this context. Washington’s decision to use direct force against the Maduro administration showed that the U.S. has re-normalized military options in regional crises. This development created a new security dilemma for Colombia. Petro’s warnings that a similar intervention could also come onto the agenda for Colombia are not only a political reaction, but also a rational concern based on the U.S.’s regional behavior patterns. After the Venezuela intervention, the discussion of Colombia as a potential next target is not limited to direct military occupation scenarios. Tools such as diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, the suspension of security cooperation, and the criminalization of Colombia in the international arena are important elements of the U.S.’s intervention repertoire. In addition, Colombia’s increasing economic and diplomatic relations with China are considered by Washington as an additional risk factor within the context of strategic competition.
As a result, U.S.-Colombia relations have entered a clear process of structural transformation as of 2026. This security-based partnership and understanding of alliance, which reached its peak during the Plan Colombia period, is giving way to mutual distrust and strategic misalignment. This transformation can be seen as part of a broader geopolitical restructuring that directly concerns not only the future of bilateral relations, but also the sustainability of the U.S.’s hegemonic position in Latin America.
[1] US Congressional Research Service (CRS). Colombia: Background and U.S Relations, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48287, (Date of Access: 06.01.2025).
[2] “Trump ends aid to Colombia and calls country’s leader a ‘drug leader’”, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8xg1jve73o, (Date of Access: 06.01.2025).
