Colombia

Jan. 22 (UPI) — Ecuador and Colombia have initiated a tariff dispute after a decision by Ecuador’s government to impose a 30% duty on imports from Colombia, a move Quito justified on grounds of border security concerns and a persistent trade imbalance.

Colombia responded swiftly, suspending electricity exports to Ecuador and announcing equivalent tariffs on an initial list of 20 Ecuadorian products, escalating tensions between the two Andean neighbors.

Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa said Wednesday that the 30% tariff would apply to certain Colombian imports starting Feb. 1, citing what he described as a lack of reciprocity and insufficient security cooperation by the government of Colombian President Gustavo Petro.

The measure will remain in force “until there is a real commitment to jointly confront drug trafficking and illegal mining along the border,” Noboa said in a post on X.

Noboa contended that Ecuador has made “real efforts of cooperation” with Colombia, despite running a trade deficit that he said exceeds $1 billion annually. He added that those efforts have not been met with comparable actions by the Colombian side.

The sectors most affected by the 30% tariff are expected to be those with the highest share of bilateral trade, including electricity, pharmaceuticals for human use, certain food products, cane sugars, jet fuel, vehicles and unroasted coffee.

Colombia’s Minister of Trade, Industry and Tourism Diana Marcela Morales Rojas said the 30% tariff Colombia will apply to 20 products imported from Ecuador is a temporary instrument aimed at restoring balance to bilateral trade conditions.

“In the government of President Gustavo Petro, we have strengthened the state’s institutional capacity to act in a technical and proportional manner, in accordance with existing regulations, when the rules governing trade between countries are altered,” Morales said, according to local outlet El Colombiano.

As part of the escalating dispute, Colombia’s Ministry of Mines and Energy announced Thursday the suspension of International Electricity Transactions with Ecuador, arguing the decision was necessary to guarantee domestic energy supply.

The ministry said the move responds to climate variability and projections of reduced firm energy availability in Colombia’s national interconnected system, factors it said increase risks to the country’s energy security.

“The duty of the state is to ensure, above all, that Colombian households, industry and essential services have secure and reliable energy,” said Energy and Mines Minister Edwin Palma Egea, according to Ecuadorian daily El Universo. He described the suspension as “a responsible, preventive and sovereign decision.”

The suspension is indefinite. Palma said Colombia rejects “unilateral measures imposed by the neighboring country,” but expressed confidence that diplomatic channels and open dialogue could quickly resolve the differences.

“When energy security conditions are restored and a framework of trust and good faith between both countries is rebuilt, Colombia will be willing to resume electricity exchanges,” he said. “Integration cannot be built at the expense of sovereignty or the well-being of our people.”

Ecuador relies on Colombian electricity imports to supplement its largely hydroelectric power system, particularly during periods of reduced rainfall that affect river flows and reservoir levels.

In response to the electricity suspension, Ecuador announced it will impose new tariffs on transporting Colombian crude oil through one of its pipelines.

In a post on X, Ecuador’s Minister of Environment and Energy Inés Manzano said that “the transport tariff for Colombian crude through the OCP pipeline will reflect the reciprocity received in the case of electricity.”

She added that Ecuador is prioritizing border security, its trade balance and its energy security.

These measures add to earlier restrictions along the border. Since Dec. 24, Ecuador has limited cross-border transit for security reasons, keeping open only two official crossings with Colombia and Peru.

Trump showers acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez with praise after first phone call since the US military’s abduction of President Nicolas Maduro.

Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodriguez has pledged to continue releasing prisoners detained under the presidency of Nicolas Maduro and described her first phone call with United States President Donald Trump since Maduro’s abduction by US forces as positive.

Rodriguez, Maduro’s former vice ‌president, said on Wednesday that she ⁠had a long, ​productive and courteous ‍phone call with the US president, in ⁠which the two discussed a bilateral agenda that would benefit both countries.

Trump, in a post on his Truth Social platform, said the two discussed oil, minerals, trade and national security, describing how “this partnership” between the US and Venezuela would be “spectacular”.

“I think we’re getting along very well with Venezuela,” Trump said at the White House after the lengthy call, describing Rodriguez as a “terrific person”, adding that US Secretary of State ‍Marco Rubio had also been in touch with the acting president.

Trump’s praise of Rodriguez follows after President Maduro and his wife, First Lady Cilia Flores, were abducted by the US military in an attack on the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, on January 3. Maduro and Flores are now being held in prison in the US.

Trump said last week that a second ⁠wave of US attacks on Venezuela had been cancelled amid “cooperation” from leaders in Caracas, including the release of a large ‍number of prisoners as a sign of “seeking peace” with Washington.

Earlier on Wednesday, during her first media briefing since Maduro’s abduction, Rodriguez said Venezuela was entering a “new political moment” and the process of releasing detainees “has not yet concluded”.

“This opportunity is for Venezuela and for the people of Venezuela to be able to see reflected a new moment where coexistence, where living together, where recognition of the other allows building and erecting a new spirituality,” Rodriguez said in her address.

Flanked by her brother and National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez, and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, the acting president also pledged “strict” enforcement of the law and credited Maduro with already initiating the release of prisoners.

“Messages of hatred, intolerance, acts of violence will not be permitted,” Rodriguez said.

The renewed promise to continue freeing prisoners followed after Jorge Rodriguez announced in parliament on Tuesday that more than 400 detainees had been freed recently.

While Venezuelan authorities deny that they hold political prisoners, the release of people held for political reasons in Venezuela has been a long-running call of rights groups, international bodies and opposition figures.

Rights groups in recent days have criticised the slow release of prisoners by the post-Maduro leadership.

Trump is scheduled to meet on Thursday with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado at the White House, their first in-person meeting since the abduction of Maduro.

Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, has offered to give Trump her prize, ‌but the Nobel Committee said the Peace Prize cannot be transferred.

Since the United States abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, accusing him of “narcoterrorism”, Colombia has found itself under growing pressure from Washington. President Gustavo Petro responds to President Donald Trump’s accusations. The Colombian leader also addresses diplomacy vs confrontation, regional sovereignty and whether Latin America is entering a dangerous new chapter.

EXCLUSIVE

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Gustavo Petro calls for ‘shared government through dialogue’ in Venezuela, leading to elections.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has stressed the importance of having open lines of communication with the United States despite President Donald Trump’s recent threats of military action against the South American country.

In an interview with Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo in Colombia’s capital, Bogota – which aired on Friday – Petro said his government is seeking to maintain cooperation on combating narcotics with Washington, striking a softer tone following days of escalating rhetoric.

His comments came after holding a phone call with Trump on Wednesday, a direct contact that Petro called a “means of communication that did not exist before”.

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, said that previously, information between the two governments had been transmitted through unofficial channels “mediated by political ideology and my opposition”.

“I have been careful – despite the insults, the threats and so on – to maintain cooperation on drug trafficking between Colombia and the United States,” Petro said.

US threats

Just hours after the US military abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Saturday, Trump turned his threats of military action towards Colombia.

Trump accused Petro – without evidence – of running cocaine mills, calling him a “sick man”.

Asked on Sunday whether he would authorise a military operation against Petro, Trump said, “Sounds good to me.”

In response, Petro promised to defend his country, saying that he would “take up arms” for his homeland.

While temperatures have cooled in the wake of the call between the two leaders on Wednesday, observers have largely seen Trump’s threats as the potential next step in the White House’s stated goal of establishing US “pre-eminence” in the Western Hemisphere.

But the feud between the Trump administration and Petro pre-dated the attack on Venezuela.

The Colombian president has been a vocal critic of Israel’s US-backed genocidal war on Gaza.

In September, Washington revoked Petro’s US visa after he spoke at a pro-Palestine march outside the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Weeks later, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the Colombian president, who is term-limited and set to leave office after a presidential election in May.

‘Shared government through dialogue’

Petro was among the first world leaders to condemn the abduction of Maduro, calling the US raid an “attack on the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America”.

In his interview with Al Jazeera, Petro warned that Venezuela, which borders his country, could fall into violence in the post-Maduro era. He said that “would be a disaster”.

“To that extent, what I have proposed is a shared government through dialogue among all the political forces in Venezuela and a series of steps towards elections,” he said.

Petro added that he has spoken to Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez, and he sensed she is worried about the future of the country.

“She’s also facing attacks,” the Colombian president said. “Some accuse her of betrayal, and that is constructed as a narrative that divides the forces that were part of the Maduro government.”

In explaining the U.S. incursion into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro, President Trump accused Maduro and his wife of conducting a “campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States and its citizens,” and Maduro of being “the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States.”

“Hundreds of thousands — over the years — of Americans died because of him,” Trump said hours after U.S. special forces dragged Maduro from his bedroom during a raid that killed more than 50 Venezuelan and Cuban military and security forces.

Experts in regional narcotics trafficking said Trump was clearly trying to justify the U.S. deposing a sitting head of state by arguing that Maduro was not just a corrupt foreign leader harming his own country but also a major player in the sweeping epidemic of overdoses that has devastated American communities.

They also said they are highly suspicious of those claims, which were offered up with little evidence and run counter to years of independent research into regional drug trafficking patterns. Countries such as Mexico and Colombia play much larger roles, and fentanyl — not the cocaine Maduro is charged with trafficking — causes the vast majority of American deaths, the research shows.

Maduro’s indictment spells out some overt criminal acts allegedly committed by him, including selling diplomatic passwords to known drug traffickers so they could avoid military and law enforcement scrutiny in Venezuela.

Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives at the U.S. Capitol on Monday to brief top lawmakers after President Trump directed U.S. forces to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

It alleges other crimes in broad strokes, such as Maduro and his wife allegedly ordering “kidnappings, beatings, and murders” against people who “undermined their drug trafficking operation.”

However, Trump’s claims about the scope and impact of Maduro’s alleged actions go far beyond what the indictment details, experts said.

“It’s very hard to respond to the level of bulls— that is being promoted by this administration, because there’s no evidence given whatsoever, and it goes against what we think we know as specialists,” said Paul Gootenberg, a professor emeritus of history and sociology at Stony Brook University who has long studied the cocaine trade. “All of it goes against what we think we know.”

“President Trump’s claim that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died due to drug trafficking linked to Maduro is inaccurate,” said Philip Berry, a former United Kingdom counter-narcotics official and a visiting senior lecturer at the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College London.

“[F]entanyl, not cocaine, has been responsible for most drug-related deaths in the U.S. over the past decade,” he said.

Jorja Leap, a social welfare professor and executive director of the UCLA Social Justice Research Partnership who has spent years interviewing gang members and drug dealers in the L.A. region, said Trump’s hyper-focus on Maduro, Venezuela and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as driving forces within the U.S. drug trade not only belies reality but also belittles the work of researchers who know better.

“Aside from making it a political issue, this is disrespecting the work of researchers, social activists, community organizers and law enforcement who have worked on this problem on the ground and understand every aspect of it,” Leap said. “This is political theater.”

Venezuela’s role

The U.S. State Department’s 2024 International Narcotics Strategy Report called Venezuela “a major transit country for cocaine shipments via aerial, terrestrial, and maritime routes,” with most of the drugs originating in Colombia and passing through other Central American countries or Caribbean islands on their way to the U.S.

Federal officers stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center.

(Leonardo Munoz / AFP via Getty Images)

However, the same report said recent estimates put the volume of cocaine trafficked through Venezuela at about 200 to 250 metric tons per year, or “roughly 10 to 13 percent of estimated global production.” According to the United Nations 2025 World Drug Report, most cocaine from Colombia is instead trafficked “along the Pacific Coast northward,” including through Ecuador.

The same report and others make clear Venezuela does not play a substantial role in fentanyl production or trafficking.

The State Department’s 2024 report said Mexico was “the sole significant source of illicit fentanyl … significantly affecting” the U.S., and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment said Mexican organizations “dominate fentanyl transportation into and through the United States.”

The Trump administration suggested Venezuela has played a larger role in cocaine production and transport in recent years under Maduro, who they allege has partnered with major trafficking organizations in Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico.

Maduro pleaded not guilty at an arraignment in Manhattan federal court this week, saying he was “kidnapped” by the U.S.

While many experts and other political observers acknowledge Maduro’s corruption and believe he has profited from drug trafficking, they question the Trump administration’s characterization of his actions as a “narco-terrorist” assault on the U.S.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), the Trump ally turned foe who this week stepped down from her House seat, condemned the raid as more about controlling Venezuela’s oil than dismantling the drug trade, in part by noting that far greater volumes of much deadlier drugs arrive to the U.S. from Mexico.

“If it was about drugs killing Americans, they would be bombing Mexican cartels,” Greene posted.

The Trump administration pushed back against such arguments, even as Trump has threatened other nations in the region.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administrator Terry Cole said on Fox News that “at a low estimate,” 100 tons of cocaine have been produced and shipped to the U.S. by groups working with Maduro.

Expert input

Gootenberg said there’s no doubt that some Colombian cocaine crosses the border into Venezuela, but that much of it goes onward to Europe and growing markets in Brazil and Asia, and there’s no evidence large amounts reach the U.S.

“The whole thing is a fiction, and I do believe they know that,” he said of the Trump administration.

Berry said Venezuela is “a transit country for cocaine” but “a relatively minor player in the international drug trade” overall, with only a “small portion” of the cocaine that passes through it reaching the U.S.

Both also questioned the Trump administration labeling Maduro’s government a “narco-terrorism” regime. Gootenberg said the term arose decades ago to describe governments whose national revenues were substantially connected to drug proceeds, such as Bolivia in the 1980s, but it was always a “propagandistic idea” and had gone “defunct” as modern governments, including Venezuela’s, diversified their economies.

The Trump administration’s move to revive the term comes as no surprise given “the way they pick up atavistic labels that they think will be useful, like ‘Make America Great Again,’” Gootenberg said. But “there’s no there there.”

Berry said use of the term “narco-terrorism” has oversimplified the “diverse and context-specific connections” between the drug industry and global terrorism, and as a result “led to the conflation of counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism efforts, frequently resulting in hyper-militarised and ineffective policy responses.”

Gootenberg said Maduro was a corrupt authoritarian who stole an election and certainly had knowledge of drug trafficking through his country, but the notion he’d somehow become a “mastermind” with leverage over transnational drug organizations is far-fetched.

Several experts said they doubted his capture would have a sizable effect on the U.S. drug trade.

“Negligible. Marginal. Whatever word you want to use to indicate the most minor of impacts,” said Leap, of UCLA.

The Sinaloa Cartel — one of Maduro’s alleged partners, according to his indictment — is a major player in Southern California’s drug trade, with the Mexican Mafia serving as middleman between the cartel and local drug gangs, Leap said. But “if anyone tries to connect this to what is happening now in Venezuela, they do not understand the nature of drug distribution, street gangs, the Mexican Mafia, everything that goes on in Southern California. There is no connection.”

Berry said in the wake of Maduro’s capture, “numerous state and nonstate actors involved in the illegal narcotics trade remain unaffected.”

Jan. 8 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro held their first phone call Wednesday since the U.S. leader started his second term — a conversation described as “constructive” that could open a path to rebuilding a historically close relationship shaped by decades of cooperation on security and a fight against drug trafficking.

The more-than-40-minute conversation followed months of verbal escalation and administrative sanctions between the two governments and against a regionally tense backdrop after a U.S. operation led to the Jan. 3 capture in Caracas of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Hours after the call, Petro addressed a rally in Bogotá’s Plaza de Bolívar, convened “in defense of sovereignty,” and acknowledged that he softened a previously tougher attitude after speaking with Trump.

“If there is no dialogue, there is war. Colombian history has taught us that,” Petro said, announcing he had requested the restoration of formal communication channels between Colombia’s Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department.

During his remarks, the Colombian president said the call covered counternarcotics cooperation and rejected accusations linking him to drug trafficking, stating that for more than two decades, he has confronted criminal organizations and allied politicians, according to Colombian outlet Noticias Caracol.

Petro said he presented Trump with official government figures, including drug seizure levels that he said reached 2,800 metric tons by year’s end, as well as the extradition of hundreds of narcotics leaders.

He also argued that, unlike previous administrations, his government halted the growth of coca crops, which he said doubled under former President Iván Duque, while increasing by no more than 10% during his tenure. Coca leaves are used to make cocaine.

Petro defended voluntary crop substitution over forced eradication, contending the latter increases violence in rural areas.

The Colombian leader added that he briefed Trump on coordination experiences with Venezuela in the fight against drug trafficking in border regions such as Catatumbo, one of the main illicit trafficking corridors, where guerrillas, dissidents and criminal gangs operate.

In a message posted on social media, Trump said it was “a great honor” to speak with Petro and that he looks forward to meeting him “soon.”

In the same message, he said Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Colombia’s foreign minister, Rosa Villavicencio, already are working on arrangements for a White House meeting.

Colombia’s ambassador to the United States, Daniel García-Peña, told Noticias RCN that the communication was facilitated by Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and that Trump extended the invitation to meet in Washington.

The diplomat described the exchange as “an extraordinary call” and said both leaders focused on issues of shared interest.

The conversation took place amid heightened domestic political tension in Colombia, marked by growing polarization and public confrontation on social media, fueled by earlier statements from Trump.

In the preceding days, the U.S. president suggested that an operation similar to the one carried out in Venezuela also “sounds good” for Colombia — rhetoric that drew strong official rebukes in Bogotá.

Petro has been a persistent critic of U.S. operations in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific, where U.S. forces have intercepted and sunk boats suspected of carrying drugs.

He has questioned that approach for its human cost, citing deaths reported during such operations.

In September, the U.S. government revoked Petro’s visa, and the Treasury Department later placed him, along with people in his inner circle, on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions list, known as the “Clinton List,” following accusations made by Trump that the Colombian government rejected and that were not accompanied by public evidence.

Despite recent friction, bilateral ties rest on a solid historical foundation. Colombia has for decades been one of Washington’s main partners in Latin America on security and counternarcotics.

In the early 2000s, cooperation was consolidated under Plan Colombia with an initial U.S.-approved aid package of $1.3 billion in 2000, and in 2022 Washington designated Colombia a “Major Non-NATO Ally,” a status reserved for strategic partners outside the alliance.

Under Petro’s government, that partnership has faced political strain, particularly over differences on counternarcotics policy and bilateral rhetoric in a more volatile regional environment.

Who knew that by “America First,” President Trump meant all of the Americas?

In puzzling over that question at least, I’ve got company in Marjorie Taylor Greene, the now-former congresswoman from Georgia and onetime Trump devotee who remains stalwart in his America First movement. Greene tweeted on Saturday, just ahead of Trump’s triumphal news conference about the United States’ decapitation of Venezuela’s government by the military’s middle-of-the-night nabbing of Nicolás Maduro and his wife: “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Wrong indeed. Nearly a year into his second term, Trump has done nothing but exacerbate the domestic problems that Greene identified as America First priorities — bringing down the “increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare” within the 50 states — even as he’s pursued the “never ending military aggression” and foreign adventurism that America Firsters scorn, or at least used to. Another Trump con. Another lie.

Here’s a stunning stat, thanks to Military Times: In 2025, Trump ordered 626 missile strikes worldwide, 71 more than President Biden did in his entire four-year term. Targets, so far, have included Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Iran and the waters off Venezuela and Colombia. Lately he’s threatened to hit Iran again if it kills demonstrators who have been marching in Tehran’s streets to protest the country’s woeful economic conditions. (“We are locked and loaded and ready to go,” Trump posted Friday.)

The president doesn’t like “forever wars,” he’s said many times, but he sure loves quick booms and cinematic secret ops. Leave aside, for now, the attacks in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. It’s Trump’s new claim to “run” Venezuela that has signaled the beginning of his mind-boggling bid for U.S. hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Any such ambition raises the potential for quick actions to become quagmires.

As Stephen Miller, perhaps Trump’s closest and most like-minded (read: unhinged) advisor, described the administration’s worldview on Monday to CNN’s Jake Tapper: “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

You know, that old, amoral iron law: “Might makes right.” Music to Vladimir Putin’s and Xi Jinping’s ears as they seek hegemonic expansion of their own, confident that the United States has given up the moral high ground from which to object.

But it was Trump, the branding maven, who gave the White House worldview its name — his own, of course: the Donroe Doctrine. And it was Trump who spelled out what that might mean in practice for the Americas, in a chest-thumping, war-mongering performance on Sunday returning to Washington aboard Air Force One. The wannabe U.S. king turns out to be a wannabe emperor of an entire hemisphere.

“We’re in charge,” Trump said of Venezuela to reporters. “We’re gonna run it. Fix it. We’ll have elections at the right time.” He added, “If they don’t behave, we’ll do a second strike.” He went on, suggestively, ominously: “Colombia is very sick too,” and “Cuba is ready to fall.” Looking northward, he coveted more: “We need Greenland from a national security situation.”

Separately, Trump recently has said that Colombia’s leftist President Gustavo Petro “does have to watch his ass,” and that, given Trump’s unhappiness with the ungenuflecting Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, “Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico.” In their cases as well as Maduro’s, Trump’s ostensible complaints have been that each has been complacent or complicit with drug cartels.

And yet, just last month Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in a U.S. court and given a 45-year sentence for his central role in “one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.” Hernández helped traffickers ship 400 tons of cocaine into the United States — to “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses.” And Trump pardoned him after less than two years in prison.

So it’s implausible that a few weeks later, the U.S. president truly believes in taking a hard line against leaders he suspects of abetting the drug trade. Maybe Trump’s real motivation is something other than drug-running?

In his appearance after the Maduro arrest, Trump used the word “oil” 21 times. On Tuesday, he announced, in a social media post, of course, that he was taking control of the proceeds from up to 50 barrels of Venezuelan oil. (Not that he cares, but that would violate the Constitution, which gives Congress power to appropriate money that comes into the U.S. Treasury.)

Or perhaps, in line with the Monroe Doctrine, our current president has a retro urge to dominate half the world.

Lately his focus has been on Venezuela and South America, but North America is also in his sights. Trump has long said he might target Mexico to hit cartels and that the United States’ other North American neighbor, Canada, should become the 51st state. But it’s a third part of North America — Greenland — that he’s most intent on.

The icy island has fewer than 60,000 people but mineral wealth that’s increasingly accessible given the climate warming that Trump calls a hoax. For him to lay claim isn’t just a problem for the Americas. It’s an existential threat to NATO given that Greenland is an autonomous part of NATO ally Denmark — as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned.

Not in 80 years did anyone imagine that NATO — bound by its tenet that an attack on one member is an attack on all — would be attacked from within, least of all from the United States. In a remarkable statement on Tuesday, U.S. allies rallied around Denmark: “It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”

Trump’s insistence that controlling Greenland is essential to U.S. national security is nuts. The United States has had military bases there since World War II, and all of NATO sees Greenland as critical to defend against Russian and Chinese encroachment in the Arctic. Still, Trump hasn’t ruled out the use of force to take the island.

He imagines himself to be the emperor of the Americas — all of it. Americas First.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

WASHINGTON — Venezuela risks “a second strike” if its interim government doesn’t acquiesce to U.S. demands. Cuba is “ready to fall,” and Colombia is “very sick, too.”

Iran may get “hit very hard” if its government cracks down on protesters. And Denmark risks U.S. intervention, as well, because “we need Greenland,” President Trump said.

In just 37 minutes while speaking with reporters Sunday aboard Air Force One, Trump threatened to attack five countries, both allies and adversaries, with the might of the U.S. military — an extraordinary turn for a president who built his political career rejecting traditional conservative views on the exercise of American power and vowing to put America first.

The president’s threats come as a third of the U.S. naval fleet remains stationed in the Caribbean, after Trump launched a daring attack on Venezuela that seized its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife over the weekend.

The goal, U.S. officials said, was to show the Venezuelan government and the wider world what the American military is capable of — and to compel partners and foes alike to adhere to Trump’s demands through intimidation, rather than commit the U.S. military to more complex, conventional, long-term engagements.

It is the deployment of overwhelming and spectacular force in surgical military operations — Maduro’s capture, last year’s strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, assassinations of Islamic State leadership and Iran’s top general in Iraq — that demonstrate Trump as a brazen leader willing to risk war, thereby effectively avoiding it, one Trump administration official said, explaining the president’s strategic thinking.

Yet experts and former Trump aides warn the president’s approach risks miscalculation, alienating vital allies and emboldening U.S. competitors.

At a Security Council meeting Monday at the United Nations in New York — called by Colombia, a long-standing and major non-North Atlantic Treaty Oranization ally to the United States — Trump’s moves were widely condemned. “Violations of the U.N. Charter,” a French diplomat told the council, “chips away at the very foundation of international order.”

Even the envoy from Russia, which has cultivated historically strong ties with the Trump administration, said the White House operation was an act of “banditry,” marking “a return to the era of illegality and American dominance through force, chaos and lawlessness.”

Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark with vast natural resources, drew particular concern across Europe on Monday, with leaders across the continent warning the United States against an attack that would violate the sovereignty of a NATO ally and European Union member state.

“That’s enough now,” Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said after Trump told reporters that his attention would turn to the world’s largest island in a matter of weeks.

“If the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop,” Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, told local press. “That includes NATO, and therefore, post-World War II security.”

Trump also threatened to strike Iran, where anti-government protests have spread throughout the country in recent days. Trump had previously said the U.S. military was “locked and loaded” if Iranian security forces begin firing on protesters, “which is their custom.”

“The United States of America will come to their rescue,” Trump wrote on social media on Jan. 2, hours before launching the Venezuela mission. “We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

In Colombia, there was widespread outrage after Trump threatened military action against leftist President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump accused, without evidence, of running “cocaine mills and cocaine factories.”

Petro is a frequent critic of the American president and has slammed as illegal a series of lethal U.S. airstrikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific.

“Stop slandering me,” Petro wrote on X, warning that any U.S. attempts against his presidency “will unleash the people’s fury.”

Petro, a former leftist guerrilla, said he would go to war to defend Colombia.

“I swore not to touch a weapon again,” he said. “But for the homeland, I will take up arms.”

Trump’s threats have strained relations with Colombia, a devoted U.S. ally. For decades, the countries have shared military intelligence, a robust trade relationship and a multibillion-dollar fight against drug trafficking.

Even some of Petro’s domestic critics have comes to his defense. Presidential candidate Juan Manuel Galán, who opposes Petro’s rule, said Colombia’s sovereignty “must be defended.”

“Colombia is not Venezuela,” Galán wrote on X. “It is not a failed state, and we will not allow it to be treated as such. Here we have institutions, democracy and sovereignty that must be defended.”

The president of Mexico, another longtime U.S. ally and its largest trading partner, has also spoken out forcefully against the American operation in Caracas, and said the Trump administration’s aggressive foreign policy in Latin America threatens the stability of the region.

“We categorically reject intervention in the internal affairs of other countries,” President Claudia Sheinbaum said in her daily news conference Monday. “The history of Latin America is clear and compelling: Intervention has never brought democracy, has never generated well-being or lasting stability.”

She addressed Trump’s comments over the weekend that drugs were “pouring” through Mexico, and that the United States was “going to have to do something.”

Trump has been threatening action against cartels for months, with some members of his administration suggesting that the United States may soon carry out drone strikes on drug laboratories and other targets inside Mexican territory. Sheinbaum has repeatedly said such strikes would be a clear violation of Mexican sovereignty.

“Sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples are non-negotiable,” she said. “They are fundamental principles of international law and must always be respected without exception.”

Cuba also rejected Trump’s threat of a military intervention there, after Trump’s secretary of State, Marco Rubio, himself the descendant of Cuban immigrants, suggested that Havana may be next in Washington’s crosshairs.

“We call on the international community to stop this dangerous, aggressive escalation and to preserve peace,” Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel posted on social media.

The U.S. attacks on Venezuela, and Trump’s threats of additional military ventures, have caused deep unease in a relatively peaceful region that has seen fewer interstate wars in recent decades than Europe, Asia or Africa.

It also caused unease among some Trump supporters, who remembered his pledge to get the United States out of “endless” military conflicts for good.

“I was the first president in modern times,” Trump said, accepting the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, “to start no new wars.”

Wilner reported from Washington and Linthicum from Mexico City.

Former Colombian President Ivan Duque Marquez, discusses how Colombia’s could play a supporting role in Venezuela transition after the abduction of Nicolas Maduro. US President Donald Trump has threatened military action against Colombia, accusing its government of making and selling cocaine to the United States.

UN Security Council to meet on Maduro’s abduction as Trump insists US in control of Venezuela.

Venezuelan officials say US air strikes killed at least 40 people, destroyed parts of the capital and violated their national sovereignty with the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro. Venezuelans are divided between fear of ongoing US intervention and celebrating his removal.

Within hours of a massive operation of regime change in Venezuela, United States President Donald Trump revelled in his “success”. He posted a photo of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in handcuffs and then addressed the American public.

He praised the military for launching “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might” in US history, allegedly rendering Venezuelan forces “powerless”. He announced that Maduro and his wife would be indicted in New York for “narcoterrorism” and claimed – without evidence – that US operations have reduced maritime drug trafficking by 97 percent.

Trump went further, declaring that the US would “run the country” until an unspecified transition could be arranged, while openly threatening a “second and much larger attack”. Crucially, he framed these claims within a broader assertion of US “domination over the Western Hemisphere”, explicitly invoking the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

The US military intervention in Venezuela represents something far more dangerous than a single act of aggression. It is the latest manifestation of a centuries-old pattern of US interference that has left Latin America scarred. The regime change operation in Caracas is a clear sign the Trump administration is embracing this old policy of interventionism with renewed fervour. And that bodes ill for the region.

That this attack targeted Maduro’s repressive and corrupt government, which was responsible for the immense suffering of many Venezuelans, makes the situation no less catastrophic. Washington’s long history of supporting brutal dictatorships across the region strips away any pretence of moral authority. Trump himself can hardly claim any moral high ground given that he is himself embroiled in a major political scandal due to his close ties with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and has maintained unconditional support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela solidifies a catastrophic pattern of violations of international law. If the US can unilaterally launch military strikes against sovereign nations at a whim, then the entire framework of international law becomes meaningless. This tells every nation that might and power trump legality and sovereignty.

For Latin America specifically, the implications are chilling. To understand why this attack reverberates so painfully across the region, one must take a quick look at its history. The US has orchestrated or supported coups and military dictatorships throughout the region with disturbing regularity.

In Guatemala in 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz. In Chile in 1973, the US backed the coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power and ushered in an era of unchecked political violence. In 1983, the US invaded and occupied the island of Grenada to overthrow its socialist government. In Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and throughout Central America, Washington provided training, funding and political cover for military regimes that tortured dissidents and murdered civilians.

The new question now is, if the US carried out regime change in Venezuela so easily, who is next? Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, who has been at odds with the Trump administration, was quick to react – and is right to be concerned, as in December, Trump threatened an intervention, saying “he’ll be next“. Others in the region are also nervous.

Beyond the looming threat of US intervention, Latin America now also faces the potential regional instability that a regime change in Caracas is likely to create. The political crisis under Maduro had already spilled beyond its borders into neighbouring Colombia and Brazil, where Venezuelans fled poverty and repression. One can only imagine the ripple effect the US-enacted regime change will have.

There are probably many Venezuelans who are celebrating Maduro’s ouster. However, the US intervention directly undermines the political opposition in Venezuela. It would allow the regime, which appears to retain power, to paint all opposition as foreign agents, eroding its legitimacy.

The Venezuelan people deserve democracy, but they have to achieve it themselves with international support, not to have it imposed at gunpoint by a foreign power with a documented history of caring more about resources and geopolitical dominance than human rights.

Latin Americans deserve better than to choose between homegrown authoritarianism and imported violence. What they need is not American bombs but genuine respect for self-determination.

The US has no moral authority to attack Venezuela, regardless of Maduro’s authoritarian nature. Both can be true: Maduro is a dictator who caused immense harm to his people, and US military intervention is an illegal act of aggression that will not resolve the crisis of democracy in Venezuela.

The region’s future must be determined by people themselves, free from the shadow of empire.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Medellin, Colombia – The shock removal of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro by the United States military has triggered alarm in bordering Colombia, where analysts warn of the possibility of far-reaching repercussions.

The Colombian government condemned Washington’s early Saturday morning attacks on Venezuela – which included strikes on military targets and Maduro’s capture – and announced plans to fortify its 2,219-kilometre (1,378-mile) eastern land border, a historic hotbed of rebellion and cocaine production.

Security analysts also say Maduro’s deposition could aggravate an already deteriorating security situation in Colombia, while refugee advocacy groups warn the country would bear the brunt of possible migration waves triggered by the fallout from the intervention.

The Colombian government held an emergency national security meeting at 3am (09:00GMT), according to President Gustavo Petro.

“The Colombian government condemns the attack on the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America,” wrote the president in an X post, announcing the mobilisation of state forces to secure the border.

The ELN factor

The National Liberation Army (ELN), a left-wing group and the largest remaining rebel force in the country, have been vocal as recently as December in its preparations to defend the country against “imperialist intervention”.

Security analysts say the primary national security risk to Colombia following the attacks stems from ELN, which controls nearly the entire border with Venezuela.

“I think there is a high risk now that the ELN will consider retaliation, including here in Colombia, against Western targets,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, deputy director for Latin America at Crisis Group International.

The rebel group is heavily involved in cocaine trafficking and operates on both sides of the border; it has benefited from ties with the Maduro government, and US intervention threatens the group’s transnational operations, according to analysts.

The ELN, which positions itself as a bastion against US imperialism in the region, had already stepped up violence in response to the White House’s threats against Colombia and Venezuela. In December, it ordered Colombians to stay home and bombed state installations across the country, an action it described as a response to US aggression.

The Colombian government has ramped up security measures in anticipation of possible retaliatory action by the ELN following Maduro’s removal.

“All capabilities of the security forces have been activated to protect the population, strategic assets, embassies, military and police units, among others, as well as to prevent any attempted terrorist action by transnational criminal organisations, such as the ELN cartel,” read a statement on Saturday morning issued by Colombia’s Ministry of Defence.

‘Mass influx of refugees’

In addition to fears of increased violence, Colombia also stands to bear the brunt of any migration crisis initiated by a conflict in Venezuela.

In an X post on Saturday morning, Petro said the government had bolstered humanitarian provisions on its eastern border, writing, “all the assistance resources at our disposal have been deployed in case of a mass influx of refugees.”

To date, Colombia has received the highest number of Venezuelan refugees worldwide, with nearly 3 million of the approximately 8 million people who have left the country settling in Colombia.

The previous wave of mass migration in 2019 – which followed opposition leader Juan Guaido’s failed attempt to overthrow Maduro – required a massive humanitarian operation to house, feed, and provide medical attention to refugees.

Such an operation is likely to prove even more challenging now, with Colombia losing roughly 70 percent of all humanitarian funds after the Trump administration shuttered its USAID programmes in the country last year.

“There is a real possibility of short-term population movement, both precautionary and forced, especially if instability, reprisals, or power vacuums emerge,” said Juan Carlos Viloria, a leader of the Venezuelan diaspora in Colombia.

“Colombia must prepare proactively by activating protection mechanisms, humanitarian corridors, and asylum systems, not only to respond to potential arrivals, but to prevent chaos and human rights violations at the border,” added Viloria.

A further collapse in US-Colombia relations

Analysts say Maduro’s removal raises difficult questions for Petro, who has been engaged in a war of words with Trump since the US president assumed office last year.

The Colombian leader drew Trump’s ire in recent months when he condemned Washington’s military buildup in the Caribbean and alleged a Colombian fisherman had been killed in territorial waters. In response, the White House sanctioned Petro, with Trump calling him a “thug” and “an illegal drug dealer”.

“Petro is irascible at the moment because he sees Trump and his threats no longer as empty, but as real possibilities,” said Sergio Guzman, Director at Colombia Risk Analysis, a Bogota-based security consultancy.

Indeed, Trump has on multiple occasions floated military strikes against drug production sites in Colombia. However, experts say it is unlikely the White House would take unilateral action given their historic cooperation with Colombian security forces.

Despite Petro condemning Washington’s intervention in Venezuela, he previously called Maduro a “dictator” and joined the US and other nations in refusing to recognise the strongman’s fraudulent re-election as president in 2024.

Rather than supporting Maduro, the Colombian leader has positioned himself as a defender of national sovereignty and international law.

On Saturday, Petro called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which Colombia joined as a temporary member just days ago.

“Colombia reaffirms its unconditional commitment to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations,” wrote the president in an X post.

This story has been published in conjunction with Latin America Reports.