The 2026 presidential election in Colombia is viewed not only as a political process to determine the next head of state, but also as a critical turning point that will shape the country’s future domestic and foreign policy directions. The election process is seen as a critical juncture that will determine whether the country’s domestic and foreign policy course of recent years will continue. The fact that current President Gustavo Petro cannot run for re-election due to constitutional restrictions has also turned the elections into a referendum on the Petro era. Voters are weighing Ivan Cepeda, who seeks to continue Petro’s social reforms and “Total Peace” policy, against right-wing candidates Abelardo de la Espriella and Paloma Valencia, who advocate for a security-focused approach and closer ties with the United States (U.S.).[i]
One of the most significant aspects of the election is the future of relations between Colombia and the United States. During Petro’s tenure, serious diplomatic tensions have occasionally arisen between the two countries. In particular, differences of opinion have emerged between the two sides regarding the fight against illicit drugs, policy toward Venezuela, and Washington’s role in Latin America. U.S. President Donald Trump accuses the Petro administration of failing to bring illicit drug production under control, while Petro argues that traditional security-focused drug policies have failed.[ii] Nevertheless, it is evident that security cooperation between the two countries has not completely ceased. In fact, recent contacts indicate that the parties do not wish to sever ties entirely.
The election results are also of great importance to Washington. For many years, Colombia has been regarded as one of the United States’ most important security partners in Latin America. In particular, the military and intelligence cooperation developed under “Plan Colombia” forms the foundation of relations between the two countries. For this reason, it is anticipated that a significant warming of relations with the United States could occur if right-wing candidates win the election. Both Abelardo de la Espriella and Paloma Valencia have stated that tougher measures will be taken against drug cartels and that security cooperation with Washington will be strengthened.
Ivan Cepeda, however, adopts a different approach. Viewed as the political heir to Petro, Cepeda prioritizes reducing social inequalities, rural development, and negotiation processes. According to Cepeda, the root causes of violence in Colombia are not merely a lack of security, but also economic injustice, rural poverty, and difficulties in accessing public services. For this reason, he argues that relying solely on military methods in the fight against drug-related crime will not produce a solution.[iii]
However, throughout the election campaign, security concerns have overshadowed economic issues. In recent years, there has been a resurgence in the activities of armed groups. The National Liberation Army (ELN), the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), dissident groups, and various criminal organizations are expanding their influence in certain regions. Assessments by the International Committee of the Red Cross also indicate that the civilian population is facing the most severe security challenges in recent years.[iv] This situation is leading a significant portion of voters to prioritize security policies.
It is precisely at this point that the Petro administration’s “Total Peace” strategy becomes a subject of debate. This policy calls for negotiations with armed groups and the implementation of ceasefires in certain regions. Through this approach, the government aims to establish a long-term environment of peace. However, the opposition argues that the strategy has not yielded the expected results. Ceasefire processes may allow certain armed groups to reorganize and expand their areas of operation. For this reason, it is likely that the rhetoric of right-wing candidates will resonate more strongly among voters concerned about security.
Abelardo de la Espriella’s rise is noteworthy in this context. The candidate, a businessman and lawyer with no political background, presents himself as an outsider to the system. Similar to El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, he promises tough security policies, announcing plans to build mega-prisons and conduct comprehensive military operations against criminal organizations.[v] This rhetoric is particularly effective among a specific voter base due to growing security concerns in urban areas.
Paloma Valencia, on the other hand, represents a more traditional conservative stance. Aligned with the political platform of former President Álvaro Uribe, Valencia advocates for expanding the capacity of security forces, employing more aggressive measures against illicit drug production, and encouraging foreign investment.[vi] Valencia appears to draw support particularly from center-right voters.
Another important aspect of the election relates to the ideological balance in Latin America. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of right-wing and center-right governments in the region. The election of a right-wing candidate in Colombia could further strengthen this trend. Conversely, a victory for Cepeda would ensure the continuation of the left-wing administration that began with Petro. For this reason, the election results are significant not only for Colombia but also for the future of regional politics.
From a foreign policy perspective, Cepeda argues that Colombia should pursue a more independent course. However, it is believed that this does not mean relations with the United States will be completely severed. This is because there are deep institutional ties between the two countries in the areas of security, trade, and intelligence. On the other hand, a victory for right-wing candidates could lead to the beginning of a closer and more harmonious period with the Trump administration.
In conclusion, the Colombian elections represent a critical test that will determine which security and foreign policy approach the country will adopt in the coming years. Voters are choosing between a “model prioritizing negotiation and social reforms” and an “approach advocating for security and hardline intervention policies.” Regardless of the first-round results, the alliances formed in the second round will determine the outcome of the election. However, what is already evident is that Colombia is not merely electing a new head of state; it is making a strategic decision that will shape the country’s direction in the post-Petro era. The consequences of this decision are being closely monitored not only in Bogotá but across a broad region stretching from Washington to Caracas.
[i] Kola, Paulin, and Aleks Phillips. “Colombia Votes in Presidential Election That Could Redefine Relations with US”, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2027g423glo, (Date Accessed: 31.05.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
