Latin America

Move comes after council tried to oust PM Fils-Aime and the US recently deployed warship to waters near Haiti’s capital.

Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council has handed power to US-backed Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aime after almost two years of tumultuous governance marked by rampant gang violence that has left thousands dead.

The transfer of power between the nine-member transitional council and 54-year-old businessman Fils-Aime took place on Saturday under tight security, given Haiti’s unstable political climate.

“Mr Prime Minister, in this historic moment, I know that you are gauging the depth of the responsibility you are taking on for the country,” council President Laurent Saint-Cyr told Fils-Aime, who is now the country’s only politician with executive power.

In late January, several members of the council said they were seeking to remove Fils-Aime, leading the United States to announce visa revocations for four unidentified council members and a cabinet minister.

Days before the council was dissolved, the US deployed a warship and two US coastguard boats to waters near Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, where gangs control 90 percent of the territory.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed “the importance” of Fils-Aime’s continued tenure “to combat terrorist gangs and stabilise the island”.

The council’s plan to oust Fils-Aime for reasons not made public appeared to fall to the wayside as it stepped down in an official ceremony on Saturday.

Fils-Aime now faces the daunting task of organising the first general elections in a decade.

Election this year unlikely

The Transitional Presidential Council was established in 2024 as the country’s top executive body, a response to a political crisis stretching back to the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moise.

It quickly devolved into infighting, questions over its membership, and allegations of corruption falling overwhelmingly short of its mission to quell gang violence and improve life for Haitians.

Just six months after being formed, the body removed Prime Minister Garry Conille, selecting Fils-Aime as his replacement.

Despite being tasked with developing a framework for federal elections, the council ended up postponing a planned series of votes that would have selected a new president by February.

Tentative dates were announced for August and December, but many believe it is unlikely an election and a run-off will be held this year.

Last year, gangs killed nearly 6,000 people in Haiti, according to the United Nations. About 1.4 million people, or 10 percent of the population, have been displaced by the violence.

The UN approved an international security force to help police restore security, but more than two years later, fewer than 1,000 of the intended troops – mostly Kenyan police – have been deployed. The UN says it aims to have 5,500 troops in the country by the middle of the year, or by November at the latest.

An amnesty law that would provide clemency to political prisoners in Venezuela has passed an initial vote unanimously in the National Assembly, stirring hopes among the country’s opposition.

On Thursday, members of both the governing socialist party and the opposition delivered speeches in favour of the new legislation, known as the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence.

“The path of this law is going to be full of obstacles, full of bitter moments,” said Jorge Rodriguez, the head of the National Assembly.

But he added that it would be necessary to “swallow hard” in order to help the country move forward.

“We ask for forgiveness, and we also have to forgive,” Rodriguez said.

But critics nevertheless pointed out that the text of the bill has yet to be made public, and it offers no clemency for individuals accused of serious crimes, including drug trafficking, murder, corruption or human rights violations.

Instead, media reports about the legislation indicate that it focuses on charges often levelled against protesters and opposition leaders.

What does the bill say?

The bill would grant amnesty to individuals accused of crimes like treason, terrorism, rebellion, resisting authorities, instigation of illegal activities, and spreading hate, if those crimes were committed in the context of political activism or protest.

Opposition leaders like Maria Corina Machado would also see bans on their candidacy for public office lifted.

In addition, the legislation specifies certain events that would qualify for amnesty, including the demonstrations that unfolded in 2007, 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2024.

That period stretches from the presidency of the late President Hugo Chavez, founder of the “chavismo” movement, through the presidency of his handpicked successor, Nicolas Maduro.

Both Chavez and Maduro were accused of the violent suppression of dissent, through arbitrary arrest, torture and extrajudicial killings.

But on January 3, the administration of United States President Donald Trump launched a military operation in Venezuela to abduct Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They have since been transported to New York City, where they await trial on charges related to drug trafficking.

While members of Venezuela’s opposition have cheered the military operation as a long overdue move, experts have argued that the US likely violated international law as well as Venezuela’s sovereignty in removing Maduro from power.

Weighing Maduro’s legacy

Images of Chavez were a common sight during Thursday’s debate at the National Assembly, which has been dominated since 2017 by members of the chavismo movement.

That year, Venezuela’s top court dissolved the opposition-led National Assembly and briefly absorbed its powers, before re-establishing a legislature stacked with Maduro supporters.

In 2018 and again in 2024, Maduro claimed victory in contested elections that critics say were marred by fraud.

In the July 2024 vote, for instance, the government refused to release voter tallies, as was previously standard practice. The opposition, however, obtained copies of nearly 80 percent of the tallies, which contradicted the government’s claims that Maduro had won a third six-year term.

After Maduro’s abduction last month, the remnants of his government remained in power.

Within days, his vice president — Delcy Rodriguez, the sister of the National Assembly leader — was sworn in as interim president.

She used her inaugural speech to denounce the “kidnapping of two heroes who are being held hostage: President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores”.

Rodriguez has nevertheless cooperated with US demands, including by supporting a bill to open Venezuela’s nationalised oil industry to foreign investment.

On the floor of the National Assembly on Thursday, her brother Jorge raised a photo of Chavez holding a crucifix while he spoke. Maduro’s son, National Assembly member Nicolas Maduro Guerra, also presented remarks.

“Venezuela cannot endure any more acts of revenge,” Maduro Guerra said as he appealed for “reconciliation”.

Venezuela’s opposition reacts

Still, opposition members in the National Assembly expressed optimism about the bill.

National Assembly representative Tomas Guanipa, for instance, called it the start of a “new, historic chapter” in Venezuelan history, one where political dissidents would no longer be “afraid to speak their minds for fear of being imprisoned”.

Nearly 7.9 million Venezuelans have left the country in recent decades, fleeing political persecution and economic instability.

But there have been lingering concerns about the human rights situation in Venezuela in the weeks following Maduro’s abduction — and whether it is safe to return home.

President Rodriguez has pledged to release political detainees and close the infamous prison El Helicoide, where reports of torture have emerged. But some experts say the number of people released does not match the number the government has reported.

The human rights group Foro Penal, for instance, has documented 383 releases since January 8.

That figure, however, is lower than the 900 political prisoners the government has claimed to have released. Foro Penal estimates 680 political prisoners remain in detention.

Opposition figures also allege that the government continues to intimidate and harass those who voice sympathy for Maduro’s removal and other opinions that run contrary to the chavismo movement.

Still, the head of Foro Penal, Alfredo Romero, applauded the initial passage of the amnesty law as a step forward.

“Amnesty is the framework that will ensure… that the past does not serve to halt or derail transition processes,” Romero told the news agency AFP.

A second vote is expected to be held on Tuesday next week.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has agreed to reveal the vetting process used by the ruling Labour Party to approve Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States in December 2024 after new revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files about the relationship between the diplomat and the billionaire sex offender.

For one, the latest release of files relating to the investigation of Epstein by the US Department of Justice showed that Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after Epstein served a sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008. But chief among the claims against Mandelson now are the suggestions he received payments from the late financier and may have shared market-sensitive information with him that was of financial interest to Epstein.

Epstein died in prison by suicide in 2019 before his trial stemming from his second prosecution for sex offences, including allegations of trafficking dozens of girls, could take place.

On Thursday, Starmer apologised to victims of Epstein for appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing of his ties to the disgraced financier.

“It had been publicly known for some time that Mandelson knew Epstein, but none of us knew the depth and the darkness of that relationship,” Starmer said.

“I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him.”

Who is Peter Mandelson and what is he accused of?

Since the release on Friday of the latest tranche of Epstein files, including emails between Epstein and Mandelson, UK media have widely reported that the government suspects Mandelson may have illegally shared market-sensitive information with Epstein 15 years ago.

The newly released files include more than 3 million pages of documents and more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

As a life peer, Mandelson, 72, was a member of the House of Lords before he resigned this week. He was a veteran Labour politician who served in the cabinets of Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010. After Labour swept back into power after 14 years in the opposition in 2024, he was appointed ambassador to the US, taking up his post on February 10 last year.

He resigned from the Labour Party on Sunday.

“I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this,” Mandelson said in a letter reported by British media.

“While doing this I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party.”

Alleged leaks of sensitive information by Mandelson took place in 2009 when he was serving as the UK’s business secretary in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

This is not the first time that Mandelson has been embarrassed by his friendship with Epstein. On September 11, the UK fired Mandelson as ambassador to the US over emails between the two men, the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said.

On Tuesday, UK police launched a criminal investigation into Mandelson over suspected misconduct in public office linked to his relationship with Epstein.

Misconduct in public office is punishable in the UK with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Besides his sacking as ambassador, Mandelson has previously been forced to resign from ministerial posts for alleged misconduct on two occasions – in 1998 and 2001.

Who was Jeffrey Epstein?

Epstein was a billionaire financier born and raised in New York who was known for socialising with celebrities and politicians.

Criminal investigations indicated he may have abused hundreds of girls over the course of his high-profile career. He was arrested in 2019 on federal criminal charges relating to alleged exploitation of underage girls dating back two decades. He died in prison before he could come to trial.

He also was previously accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in 2005 after her parents made a report to the police. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor in relation to a single victim.

He spent 13 months in prison on a work-release programme, which allowed him to leave jail to go to work during the day and return at night.

The US attorney in Manhattan also prosecuted Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell as a coconspirator in his sexual abuse scheme. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, which she received in 2022.

What do we know about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein?

When Mandelson was fired as ambassador to the US in September, the FCDO wrote: “In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.

“The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.”

These particular emails were obtained and published by the UK’s Sun newspaper in September. In them, Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced in 2008.

“I think the world of you,” Mandelson told Epstein before his sentence began.

“I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain,” Mandelson wrote. “You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

It is now clear from the latest tranche of Epstein files that Mandelson continued his friendship with Epstein for some time after the financier had been convicted of sex offences.

What do the new Epstein files reveal?

From 2003 to 2004, bank records indicated that Epstein made three payments totalling $75,000 to accounts connected to Mandelson or his partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva. Mandelson has said he does not recall receiving any such funds and has pledged to examine whether the documents are genuine.

According to these documents, in 2009, Epstein sent da Silva 10,000 pounds ($13,607, or $20,419 today after inflation) to pay for an osteopathy course. This week, Mandelson told The Times of London: “In retrospect, it was clearly a lapse in our collective judgement for Reinaldo to accept this offer.”

Emails revealed in the latest tranche of files from the US Justice Department also shine a light on the close friendship between the two men.

In October 2009, Epstein wrote in an email to Mandelson: “You can marry princess beatrice, the queen would have a queen as a grandson,” referring to the daughter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince whose royal titles were stripped last year over his own links to Epstein and allegations of the sexual abuse of Virginia Giuffre, who successfully sued Mountbatten-Windsor.

“does that make it incest, how exciting,” Epstein wrote.

In 2010, Lesley Groff, known to have been Epstein’s long-term executive assistant, emailed his boss: “Mandelson’s holiday plans arc still being sorted out. They hope to be in touch soon.”

In 2013, Epstein emailed Mandelson, saying he knew Mandelson was visiting St Petersburg, Russia. Mandelson described the city as “a rave”, to which Epstein asked whether “its for gays”. Mandelson responded, “Er no, tastey [sic] models and dancing.”

But the emails also suggested Mandelson passed sensitive information to the financier.

On May 9, 2010, Mandelson emailed Epstein, saying: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout, almost compelte [sic].” The next morning, European governments approved a 500-billion-euro bailout for banks in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Also in May 2010, Mandelson emailed Epstein, saying, “Finally got him to go today.” It is believed that Mandelson was referring to former Labour Prime Minister Brown.

Epstein replied to this email: “I have faith, the value of some chapters in your book should now increase.”

Brown announced his resignation just hours after this email exchange.

What has Starmer said?

Under mounting pressure from opposition politicians and within his own party this week, Starmer agreed to release information about the process through which Mandelson was appointed ambassador in 2024.

At a question and answer session on Wednesday in the House of Commons dominated by the Epstein revelations, Starmer admitted that he knew of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein but said Mandelson had “lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador”.

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party,” Starmer said. “I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”

Starmer said he would ensure that “all of the material” is published, except for documents that compromise Britain’s national security, international relations or the police investigation into Mandelson’s activities.

On Tuesday, Starmer told his cabinet he was “appalled by the information” regarding Mandelson and was concerned more details could come to light, according to a Downing Street readout of the cabinet meeting.

Starmer also said he had ordered the civil service to conduct an “urgent” review of all of Mandelson’s contacts with Epstein while he was in government.

“The alleged passing on of emails of highly sensitive government business was disgraceful,” Starmer said, adding that he was not yet “reassured that the totality of information had yet emerged”.

How will this affect Starmer?

Members of parliament expressed their dismay and called on him to step down.

Conservative MP Luke Evans said: “At the end of the day, he [Starmer] made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process.”

Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: “There is no doubt that the prime minister’s judgement is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgement in future.”

Conservative MP Graham Stuart added: “The fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan Principles before his appointment as well as doing so after it. I think that makes the prime minister’s position untenable.”

The Nolan Principles are a set of ethical standards for all public office holders in the UK.

“I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgement is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour Party,” Conservative MP Esther McVey said.

What do we know about how Mandelson was approved as US ambassador?

Facing questions from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in the House of Commons in September, Starmer maintained that “full due process was gone through” for the purposes of Mandelson’s appointment.

Mandelson’s ties to Epstein, who is said to have nicknamed him “Petie”, had been publicly known for years.

But The Times of London reported that Starmer received just a two-page vetting note from the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team about Mandelson’s appointment.

That document suggested that while Epstein was in prison in 2009, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan. The report also contained a photograph of Mandelson and Epstein together.

This indicated that by late 2024, the UK government had documentation showing Mandelson had remained close to Epstein even after his 2008 conviction.

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), a United Nations agency, has issued a new report warning of an uptick in measles cases throughout the region.

On Wednesday, the organisation issued an epidemiological alert that called for member states to strengthen “routine surveillance and vaccination activities” in order to combat the spread of the disease.

“The sharp increase in measles cases in the Americas Region during 2025 and early 2026 is a warning sign that requires immediate and coordinated action by Member States,” PAHO said in a statement.

Overall, in the first three weeks of 2026 alone, PAHO documented 1,031 cases of measles in the Americas. Throughout 2025, a total of 14,891 cases were confirmed.

Some of the biggest outbreaks the PAHO highlighted were unfolding in North America, with countries like the United States, Mexico and Canada facing high numbers of cases.

What is measles?

Measles is a highly contagious airborne virus capable of infecting nine out of every 10 people exposed to it, if they are unvaccinated.

In most cases, symptoms of the disease clear up within several weeks. However, measles can be deadly or cause life-altering health complications, particularly among young children.

Some sufferers find themselves with ear infections and lung inflammation. Others experience pneumonia or encephalitis, a swelling of the brain that can cause lasting damage, including seizures and memory loss.

The only way to prevent measles and halt its spread is by taking a vaccine. That care is often administered through a combination vaccine known by the acronym MMR, for measles, mumps and rubella.

Doctors typically advise patients to get vaccinated early. For healthy children, the general guidance is to receive the first MMR dose before 15 months of age. The second and final dose is recommended before age six.

The MMR vaccine is widely considered safe. But in countries like the US, vaccination rates have fallen in recent years, in part due to conspiracy theories and misleading statements.

The country’s Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, for instance, has previously asserted that the vaccine “wanes very quickly”, despite the fact that it offers lifelong protection.

Kennedy has also claimed there were health risks associated with the vaccine. But experts, including at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have repeatedly maintained that most people encounter no serious problems – and that the vaccine is far safer than exposure to measles itself.

“There have been no deaths shown to be related to the MMR vaccine in healthy people,” the Infectious Diseases Society of America says on its website.

High numbers in North America

According to PAHO’s report on Wednesday, the US has seen 171 new cases of measles in the first three weeks of 2026. The country experienced a total of 2,242 cases in 2025.

One of the ongoing outbreaks has been in South Carolina, where 876 incidents of measles have been reported in recent months. Of that total, 800 sufferers were unvaccinated, 16 had only received a partial vaccination, and 38 had an unknown vaccination status.

Meanwhile, in Texas, an outbreak resulted in 762 cases of measles between January and August. Two unvaccinated children died in that outbreak, and there were 99 hospitalisations.

In 2000, measles had been declared eliminated from the US, a sign that cases were no longer spreading domestically, though some cases did occur after exposure to the virus abroad.

Mexico, too, had achieved its measles elimination status in 1996, after an extensive vaccination campaign. The entire Americas region was declared measles-free in 2016.

But both the US and Mexico risk seeing their measles elimination status revoked, as outbreaks continue.

In Mexico, for instance, there were 6,428 cases of measles in 2025, the highest of any country in the Americas. For the first three weeks of 2026, there have been 740 more cases.

PAHO typically determines which countries have elimination status, and the organisation has indicated that it will review the situation in the US and Mexico during a virtual meeting on April 13.

Canada, meanwhile, already saw its measles elimination status rescinded in November. It has seen several measles outbreaks since October 2024.

PAHO found that there were 5,436 cases of measles last year, and 67 in the first three weeks of 2026.

The country can win back its elimination status only if it stops measles transmissions resulting from its outbreaks for more than one year.

The Gaitanist Army of Colombia (EGC), the country’s largest criminal organisation, has announced it will temporarily suspend peace talks in Qatar after Colombian President Gustavo Petro reportedly pledged to target its leader.

In a social media post on Wednesday, the EGC, sometimes referred to as the Gulf Clan, indicated the suspension would continue until it received updates from the Petro administration.

“By order of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the EGC delegation at the negotiating table will temporarily suspend talks with the government to consult and clarify the veracity of the information,” the group wrote in a statement on X.

“If the media reports are true, this would be a violation of good faith and the Doha commitments.”

Colombia’s Defence Minister Pedro Sanchez confirmed the reports later on Wednesday, sharing a list of three drug “kingpins” that Petro’s administration would prioritise as “high-level targets”.

Among the three targets was the EGC’s leader, Jesus Avila Villadiego, alias Chiquito Malo. A reward for his capture was set at 5 billion Colombian pesos, equivalent to $1.37m.

The other two “kingpins” included top rebel commanders identified only by their aliases: Ivan Mordisco and Pablito.

The public announcement echoes a private one cemented during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday at the White House, when Petro met United States President Donald Trump in person for the first time.

For months, Trump has pressured the Petro administration to take more “aggressive action” to combat narcotics trafficking out of Colombia.

In response, Petro and his team presented the Trump administration on Tuesday with a dossier on their counter-narcotics operations titled, “Colombia: America’s #1 Ally Against Narcoterrorists”.

The presentation featured statistics on cocaine seizures, programmes to eradicate coca crops, and the high-level arrests and killings of drug lords.

But the commitment to collaborate with the US in the pursuit of Chiquito Malo’s arrest has thrown negotiations with the EGC into peril.

It has also raised questions about the future of Petro’s signature policy, “Total Peace”, which was designed to open talks with rebel groups and criminal networks in an effort to halt Colombia’s six-decade-long internal conflict.

The EGC is a major criminal group with almost 10,000 members, according to a recent report by the Ideas for Peace Foundation.

In December, the US also designated the group as a “foreign terrorist organisation”, as part of its ongoing efforts to crack down on drug trafficking.

The EGC has been engaged in high-level discussions with the Colombian government in Doha since September 2025. The two parties signed a “commitment to peace” on December 5, which outlined a roadmap to the EGC putting down arms.

The first step towards demobilisation was for the group to gather its forces in temporary zones, beginning in March. The government had suspended arrest warrants in December for EGC commanders, including Chiquito Malo, who were due to move to these areas.

But the government’s plans to detain the drug lord, declared yesterday at the White House, destabilised this process, according to analysts.

“[The EGC] interpret this as a direct threat where, if any commander who has arrest warrants … goes to the temporary zones, he runs a high risk,” said Gerson Arias, a conflict and security investigator at the Ideas for Peace Foundation, a Bogota-based think tank.

The Colombian Supreme Court in January approved Chiquito Malo’s extradition to the US in the eventuality of his capture, but the final decision to extradite him resides with the president.

By declaring the drug lord a “target” at the White House, Petro signalled support for capturing and extraditing the EGC commander.

Potential US involvement in the operation also appears to have unsettled the criminal organisation, according to experts.

“It is very different for Chiquito Malo to be pursued solely by the Colombian government than for him to become a target of joint strategic value involving US intelligence,” said Laura Bonilla, a deputy director at the Peace and Reconciliation Foundation, a Colombian think tank.

Although the EGC suspended its peace talks on Wednesday, it stressed that it remained open to resuming negotiations.

“It should be clarified that the suspension is temporary, not permanent, which indicates that they [the talks] will resume shortly,” a lawyer for the group told Al Jazeera, on condition of anonymity.

The representative added that, for talks to continue, the EGC requires that “legal and personal security guarantees” and “the commitments agreed upon in Doha, Qatar, are fulfilled”.

New Delhi, India – When US President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with India on Monday this week, he declared that New Delhi would pivot away from Russian energy as part of the agreement.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump said, had promised to stop buying Russian oil, and instead buy crude from the United States and from Venezuela, whose president, Nicolas Maduro, was abducted by US special forces in early January. Since then, the US has effectively taken control of Venezuela’s mammoth oil industry.

In return, Trump dialled down trade tariffs on Indian goods from an overall 50 percent to just 18 percent. Half of that 50 percent tariff was levied last year as punishment for India buying Russian oil, which the White House maintains is financing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

But since Monday, India has not publicly confirmed that it has committed to either ceasing its purchase of Russian oil or embracing Venezuelan crude, analysts note. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that Russia had received no indication of this from India, either.

And switching from Russian to Venezuelan oil will be far from straightforward. A cocktail of other factors – shocks to the energy market, costs, geography, and the characteristics of different kinds of oil – will complicate New Delhi’s decisions about its sourcing of oil, they say.

So, can India really dump Russian oil? And can Venezuelan crude replace it?

What is Trump’s plan?

Trump has been pressuring India to stop buying Russian oil for months. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the US and European Union placed an oil price cap on Russian crude in a bid to limit Russia’s ability to finance the war.

As a result, other countries including India began buying large quantities of cheap Russian oil. India, which before the war sourced only 2.5 percent of its oil from Russia, became the second-largest consumer of Russian oil after China. It currently sources around 30 percent of its oil from Russia.

Last year, Trump doubled trade tariffs on Indian goods from 25 percent to 50 percent as punishment for this. Later in the year, Trump also imposed sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies – and threatened secondary sanctions against countries and entities that trade with these firms.

Since the abduction of Maduro by US forces in early January, Trump has effectively taken over the Venezuelan oil sector, controlling sales cash flows.

Venezuela also has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, estimated at 303 billion barrels, more than five times larger than those of the US, the world’s largest oil producer.

But while getting India to buy Venezuelan oil makes sense from the US’s perspective, analysts say this could be operationally messy.

How much oil does India import from Russia?

India currently imports nearly 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian crude, according to analytics company Kpler. Under Trump’s mounting pressure, that is lower than the average 1.21 million bpd in December 2025 and more than 2 million bpd in mid-2025.

One barrel is equivalent to 159 litres (42 gallons) of crude oil. Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres (19 gallons) of petrol for a car. Oil is also refined to produce a wide variety of products, from jet fuel to household items including plastics and even lotions.

Has India stopped Russian oil purchases?

India has reduced the amount of oil it buys from Russia over the past year, but it has not stopped buying it altogether.

Under increasing pressure from Trump, last August, Indian officials called out the “hypocrisy” of the US and EU pressuring New Delhi to back off from Russian crude.

“In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,” Randhir Jaiswal, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said then. He added that India’s decision to import Russian oil was “meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer”.

Despite this, Indian refiners, currently the second-largest group of buyers of Russian oil after China, are reportedly winding up their purchases after clearing current scheduled orders.

Major refiners like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL), Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL), and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd (HMEL) halted purchasing from Russia following the US sanctions against Russian oil producers last year.

Other players like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporation, and Reliance Industries will soon stop their purchases.

What happens if India suddenly stops buying Russian oil?

Even if India wanted to stop importing Russian oil altogether, analysts argue it would be extremely costly to do so.

In September last year, India’s oil and petroleum minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, told reporters that it would also sharply push up energy prices and fuel inflation. “The world will face serious consequences if the supplies are disrupted. The world can’t afford to keep Russia off the oil market,” Puri said.

Analysts tend to agree. “A complete cessation of Indian purchases of Russian oil would be a major disruption. An immediate halt would spike global prices and threaten India’s economic growth,” said George Voloshin, an independent energy analyst based in Paris.

Russian oil would likely be diverted more heavily towards China and into “shadow” fleets of tankers that deliver sanctioned oil secretly by flying false flags and switching off location equipment, Voloshin told Al Jazeera. “Mainstream tanker demand would shift toward the Atlantic Basin, most likely increasing global freight rates as a result,” he noted.

Sumit Pokharna, vice president at Kotak Securities, noted that Indian refineries have reported robust margins in the last two years, majorly benefitting from the discounted Russian crude.

“If they move to higher-costing, like the US or Venezuela, then raw material cost would increase, and that would squeeze their margins,” he told Al Jazeera. “If it goes beyond control, they may have to pass the excess onto consumers.”

Can India stop buying Russian oil altogether?

It may not be able to. One of India’s two private refiners, Nayara Energy, is majority-Russian-owned and under heavy Western sanctions. The Russian energy firm Rosneft holds a 49.13 percent stake in the company, which operates a 400,000-barrel-per-day refinery in India’s Gujarat, PM Modi’s home state.

Nayara is the second-largest importer of Russian crude, buying about 471,000 barrels per day in January this year, accounting for nearly 40 percent of Russian supplies to India.

Its plant has relied solely on Russian crude since European Union sanctions were imposed on the company last July.

Nayara is not planning to load Russian oil in April as it shuts its refinery for more than a month for maintenance from April 10, according to Reuters.

Pokharna said the future of Nayara hangs in the balance, with the US unlikely to grant India an overt exemption for the Russia-backed company to import crude.

Can India switch to Venezuelan oil?

India has been a major consumer of Venezuelan oil in the past. At its peak, in 2019, India imported $7.2bn of oil, accounting for just under 7 percent of total imports. That stopped after the US slapped sanctions on Venezuelan oil, but some officials of the government-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation are still stationed in the Latin American country.

Now, major Indian refiners have said they are open to receiving Venezuelan oil again, but only if it is a viable option.

For one thing, Venezuela is roughly twice as far from India as Russia and five times further than the Middle East, meaning much higher freight costs.

Venezuelan oil is more expensive as well. “Russian Urals [a medium-heavy crude blend] has been trading at a wide-ranging discount of about $10-20 per barrel to Brent, while Venezuelan Merey currently offers a smaller discount of around $5-8 per barrel,” Voloshin told Al Jazeera.

“Importing from Venezuela and forgoing the Russian discount would be a costly affair for India,” said Pokharna. “From transportation cost to forgoing discounts, it could cost India $6-8 more per barrel – and that is a huge increase in the importing bill.”

Overall, a complete pivot away from Russia could raise India’s import bill by $9bn to $11bn – an amount roughly equal to India’s federal health budget – per year, according to Kpler.

“Venezuelan crude must be discounted by at least $10 to $12 per barrel to be competitive,” argued Voloshin. “This deeper discount is necessary to offset the much higher freight costs, increased insurance premiums for the longer Atlantic voyage, and the somewhat higher operational expenses required to process Venezuela’s extra-heavy high-sulfur crude.”

Without deeper discounts, the longer journey and complex handling make Venezuelan oil more expensive on a delivered basis, he added.

Another major issue is that many Indian refiners simply do not have the facilities to process very heavy Venezuelan oil.

Venezuelan crude is a heavy, sour oil, thick and viscous like molasses, with a high sulphur content requiring complex, specialised refineries to process it into fuel. Only a small number of Indian refineries are equipped to handle it.

“[Venezuelan oil’s heaviness] makes it an option only for complex refineries, leaving out older and smaller refineries,” Pokharna told Al Jazeera. “The shift is operationally difficult and would require blending with more expensive light crudes.”

Then there is the question of availability. Today, Venezuela produces barely a million barrels per day when pushed to its limit. Even if all production was sent to India, it would not match the total Russian oil import.

Where else could India buy oil?

India’s Minister Puri has said that New Delhi is looking to diversify sourcing options from nearly 40 countries.

As India has reduced Russian imports, it has increased them from Middle Eastern nations and other countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Now, while Russia accounts for nearly 27 percent share in India’s oil imports, OPEC nations, led by Iraq and Saudi Arabia, contribute 53 percent.

Reeling from Trump’s trade war, India has also increased purchases of US oil. American crude imports to India rose by 92 percent from April to November in 2025 to nearly 13 million tons, compared to 7.1 million in the same period in 2024.

However, India would be competing for these supplies with the European Union, which has pledged to spend $750bn by 2028 on US energy and nuclear products.

Meanwhile, for Venezuela to return to higher production, Caracas needs political stability, changes in foreign investment and oil laws, and to clear debts. That will take time, experts say.

MEXICO CITY — Historians and observers accused the Trump administration of trying to rewrite American history to justify its own foreign policy decisions toward Latin America by posting a “historically inaccurate” version of the Mexican-American war.

The Monday statement from the White House commemorating the anniversary of the war described the conflict as a “legendary victory that secured the American Southwest, reasserted American sovereignty, and expanded the promise of American independence across our majestic continent.” The statement drew parallels between the period in U.S. history and its own increasingly aggressive policies toward Latin America, which it said would “ensure the Hemisphere remains safe.”

“Guided by our victory on the fields of Mexico 178 years ago, I have spared no effort in defending our southern border against invasion, upholding the rule of law, and protecting our homeland from forces of evil, violence, and destruction,” the statement said, though it was unsigned.

In the post, the White House makes no mention of the key role slavery played in the war and glorifies the wider “Manifest Destiny” period, which resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans from their land.

Sparking criticism

Alexander Aviña, Latin American history professor at Arizona State University, said the White House statement “underplays the massive amounts of violence that it took to expand” the U.S. to the Pacific shore at a time when the Trump administration has stuck its hand in Latin American affairs in a way not seen in decades, deposing Venezuela’s president, meddling in elections and threatening military action in Mexico and other countries.

“U.S. political leaders since then have seen this as an ugly aspect of U.S. history, this is a pretty clear instance of U.S. imperialism against its southern neighbor,” Aviña said. “The Trump administration is actually embracing this as a positive in U.S. history and framing it – inaccurately historically – as some sort of defensive measure to prevent the Mexico from invading them.”

On Tuesday, criticisms of the White House statement quickly rippled across social media.

Asked about the statement in her morning news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum guffawed, quipping and noting “we have to defend sovereignty.” Sheinbaum, who has walked a tight rope with the Trump administration, has responded to Trump with a balanced tone and occasionally with sarcasm, like when Trump changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

Historical sticking point

The Mexican-American war (1846–1848) was triggered by long-running border disputes between the U.S. and Mexico and the United States’ annexation of Texas in 1845. For years leading up to the war, Americans had gradually moved into the then-Mexican territory. Mexico had banned slavery and U.S. abolitionists feared the U.S. land grab was in part an attempt to add slave states.

After fighting broke out and successive U.S. victories, Mexico ceded more than 525,000 square miles of territory — including what now comprises Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah — to the U.S.

The moment turned Texas into a key chess piece during the U.S. Civil War and led former President Ulysses S. Grant to write later that the conflict with Mexico was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.”

The Associated Press was formed when five New York City newspapers funded a pony express route through Alabama to bring news of the Mexican War — as it is sometimes known in the U.S. — north faster than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it.

The war continues to be a historical sticking point between the two countries, particularly as Sheinbaum repeatedly reminds Trump that her country is a sovereign nation whenever Trump openly weighs taking military action against Mexican cartels and pressures Mexico to bend to its will.

Rewriting history

The White House statement falls in line with wider actions taken by the Trump administration to mold the federal government’s language around its own creed, said Albert Camarillo, history professor at Stanford University, who described the statement as a “distorted, ahistorical, imperialist version” of the war.

Aviña said the statement serves “to assert rhetorically that the U.S. is justified in establishing its so-called ‘America First’ policy throughout the Americas,” regardless of the historical accuracy.

The Trump administration has ordered the rewriting of history on display at the Smithsonian Institution, saying it was “restoring truth and sanity to American history.”

The administration has scrubbed government websites of history, legal records and data it finds disagreeable. Trump also ordered the government to remove any signs that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living,” including those making reference to slavery, destruction of Native American cultures and climate change.

“This statement is consistent with so many others that attempt to whitewash and reframe U.S. history and erase generations of historical scholarship,” Camarillo said.

Janetsky writes for the Associated Press.

Thousands of people marched through Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, demanding the release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, exactly one month since US forces abducted the couple in a bloody nighttime raid.

“Venezuela needs Nicolas!” the crowd chanted in Tuesday’s demonstration, titled “Gran Marcha” (The Great March).

Thousands carried signs in support of the abducted president, and many wore shirts calling for the couple’s return from detention in a US prison.

“The empire kidnapped them. We want them back,” declared one banner carried by marchers.

Nicolas Maduro Guerra, the detained president’s son and a member of Venezuela’s National Assembly, addressed the crowds from a stage, stating that the US military’s abduction of his father on January 3 “will remain marked like a scar on our face, forever”.

“Our homeland’s soil was desecrated by a foreign army”, Maduro Guerra said of the night US forces abducted his father.

The march, called by the government and involving many public sector workers, stretched for several hundred metres, accompanied by trucks blaring music.

Local media outlet Venezuela News said the march was part of a “global day of action” to demand the couple’s release. Protesters showed their solidarity around the world, demonstrating under banners with slogans like “Bring them back” and “Hands off Venezuela”.

The international event united voices “from diverse ideological trends”, who agreed “that the detention of President Maduro and Cilia Flores represents a flagrant violation of international law and a dangerous precedent for the sovereignty of nations”, the news outlet said.

“We feel confused, sad, angry. There are a lot of emotions,” said Jose Perdomo, a 58-year-old municipal employee, who marched in Caracas.

“Sooner or later, they will have to free our president”, he said, adding that he also backed Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez.

Rodriguez has been walking a thin line since taking over as acting president, trying to appease Maduro’s supporters in government and accommodating the demands being placed on Caracas by US President Donald Trump.

Trump has said he is willing to work with Rodriguez, as long as Caracas falls in line with his demands, particularly on the US taking control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

Striking a conciliatory tone with Washington, and promising reform and reconciliation at home, Rodriguez has already freed hundreds of political prisoners and opened Venezuela’s nationalised hydrocarbons sector to private investment.

Earlier on Tuesday, hundreds of university students and relatives of political prisoners also marched in the capital, calling for the quick approval of an amnesty law promised by Rodriguez that would free prisoners from the country’s jails.

Legislation on the amnesty has not yet come before parliament.

Survivors, including a seriously injured child, taken to hospital as state governor declares three days of mourning.

A bus returning from a religious festival in northeast Brazil has veered off the road on a curve and overturned, killing at least 16 people, including four children, officials said.

The bus had been carrying about 60 people when it tipped over in the rural interior of Alagoas state on Tuesday, ejecting some passengers while others were trapped beneath the wreckage.

The Alagoas regional government said in a statement that seven women, five men and four children were among those killed. The accident remains under investigation and was described as “highly complex”.

Brazilian media reported that the bus had been returning from celebrations for Our Lady of Candelaria, a religious festival in the state of Ceara that attracts thousands of devotees every February 2.

“The bus went off the road on a curve, overturned, and some people were thrown out,” said Colonel Andre Madeiro, director of the Alagoas Aviation Department, which took part in the rescue operation.

“Some were trapped under the vehicle. It was a very bad accident, even atypical,” he told a news conference.

Images posted on the X social media platform of the reported crash site featured a severely-mangled bus lying on its side as injured passengers sat nearby waiting for help.

Survivors of the crash, including a seriously injured child, were taken to hospital, where they remain under medical care.

“I express my solidarity with the families and friends at this time of such great pain,” Governor Paulo Dantas wrote on social media. Three days of mourning will be observed in the state, he said.

Deadly road accidents are common in Brazil.

In October, 17 people died in the northeastern state of Pernambuco when a driver lost control of a bus.

More than 10,000 people died in traffic accidents in Brazil in 2024, according to the Ministry of Transportation, including in December 2024, when at least 32 people were killed when a passenger bus and a truck collided on a highway in southeastern Brazil’s state of Minas Gerais.

Also in 2024, a bus carrying a football team flipped on a road, killing three people.

For months, United States President Donald Trump has called him a “sick man” and an “illegal drug leader”.

But on Tuesday, Trump welcomed his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, to the White House for their first face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC.

Both leaders hailed the meeting as productive, while acknowledging the lingering tensions that divide them.

At a news conference after their meeting, Petro waved away questions about his rocky history with Trump, whom he has publicly accused of human rights violations.

Instead, he called the interaction “ a meeting between two equals who have different ways of thinking”.

“He didn’t change his way of his thinking. Neither did I. But how do you do an agreement, a pact? It’s not as between twin brothers. It’s between opponents,” Petro said.

Separately, Trump told reporters from the Oval Office that he felt good about the meeting. “I thought it was terrific,” he said.

On the agenda for the two leaders were issues including the fight against transnational drug trafficking and security in Latin America.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s meeting.

A White House charm offensive

Over the past year, Trump has invited the media to participate in his meetings with foreign leaders, often holding news conferences with the visiting dignitaries in the Oval Office.

Not this time, however. The meeting between Trump and Petro lasted nearly two hours, all of it behind closed doors.

But the two leaders emerged with largely positive things to say about one another.

In a post on social media, Petro revealed that Trump had gifted him several items, including a commemorative photograph of their meeting accompanied by a signed note.

“Gustavo – a great honor. I love Colombia,” it read, followed by Trump’s signature.

In another post, Petro showed off a signed copy of Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal. On its title page, Trump had scrawled another note to Petro: “You are great.”

“Can someone tell me what Trump said in this dedication?” Petro wrote jokingly in Spanish on social media. “I don’t understand much English.”

A turning point in a tense relationship?

Petro’s joke appeared to be a cheeky nod to his notoriously rocky relationship with Trump.

It was only six days into Trump’s second term, on January 26, 2025, that he and Petro began their feud, trading threats on social media over the fate of two US deportation flights.

Petro objected to the reported human rights violations facing the deportees. Trump, meanwhile, took Petro’s initial refusal to accept the flights as a threat to US “national security”. Petro ultimately backed down after Trump threatened steep sanctions on imported Colombian goods.

They continued to trade barbs in the months since. Petro, for instance, has condemned the deadly US attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, comparing the strikes with murder.

He has also criticised Trump for carrying out a US military offensive in Venezuela to abduct then-President Nicolas Maduro. That attack, Petro said, was tantamount to “kidnapping”.

Trump, meanwhile, stripped Petro of his US visa following the Colombian leader’s appearance at the United Nations General Assembly, where he criticised the US and briefly joined a pro-Palestinian protest.

The Trump administration also sanctioned Petro in October, blaming the left-wing leader for allowing “drug cartels to flourish”.

After removing Maduro from power on January 3, Trump offered a warning to Petro: he had better “watch his a**”. The statement was widely interpreted to be a threat of military action against Colombia.

But Trump and Petro appeared to have reached a turning point last month. On January 7, the two leaders held their first call together. Tuesday’s in-person meeting marked another first in their relationship.

Agreeing to disagree

Despite the easing tensions, the two leaders used their public statements after the meeting to reaffirm their differences.

Trump was the first to speak, holding a news conference in the Oval Office as he signed legislation to end a government shutdown.

The US president, a member of the right-wing Republican Party, used the appearance to reflect on the political tensions the two leaders had in the lead-up to the meeting.

“He and I weren’t exactly the best of friends, but I wasn’t insulted, because I’d never met him,” Trump told reporters.

He added that Tuesday’s meeting was nevertheless pleasant. “I didn’t know him at all, and we got along very well.”

Petro, meanwhile, held a longer news conference at the Colombian Embassy in Washington, DC, where he raised some points of divergence he had with Trump.

Among the topics he mentioned was Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which the US has supported, and sustainable energy initiatives designed to be carbon neutral. Trump, in the past, has called the so-called green energy programmes a “scam”.

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing leader, also reflected on his region’s history with colonialism and foreign intervention. He told reporters it was important that Latin America make decisions for itself, free from any outside “coercion”.

“ We don’t operate under blackmail,” he said at one point, in an apparent reference to Trump’s pressure campaigns.

Differing approach to combating drug trafficking

One of the primary points of contention, however, was Petro’s approach to combating drug trafficking.

Colombia is the world’s largest producer of cocaine, responsible for 68 percent of the global supply.

The Trump administration has used the fight against global drug trafficking as a justification for carrying out lethal military strikes in international waters and in Venezuela, despite experts condemning the attacks as illegal under international law.

It has also stripped Colombia of its certification as an ally in its global counter-narcotics operations.

Trump’s White House has said it will consider reversing that decision if Petro takes “more aggressive action to eradicate coca and reduce cocaine production and trafficking”.

But Petro has rejected any attempt to label him as soft on drug trafficking, instead touting the historic drug busts his government has overseen.

He made this argument yet again after Tuesday’s meeting, claiming that no other Colombian administration had done as much as his to fight cocaine trafficking.

Rather than take a militarised approach to destroying crops of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine, Petro argued that he has had more success with voluntary eradication programmes.

This push, he said, succeeded in “getting thousands of peasant farmers to uproot the plant themselves”.

“These are two different methods, two different ways of understanding how to fight drug trafficking,” Petro said. “One that is brutal and self-interested, and what it ends up doing is promoting mafia powers and drug traffickers, and another approach, which is intelligent, which is effective.”

Petro maintained it was more strategic to go after top drug-ring leaders than to punish impoverished rural farmers by forcibly ripping up their crops.

“I told President Trump, if you want an ally in fighting drug trafficking, it’s going after the top kingpins,” he said.

A Trumpian note

Tuesday’s meeting ultimately marked yet another high-profile reversal for Trump, who has a history of shifting his relationships with world leaders.

Last year, for instance, he lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a public Oval Office clash, only to warm to the wartime leader several months later.

But Colombia is quickly approaching a pivotal presidential election in May, which will see Petro’s left-wing coalition, the Historic Pact, seek to defend the presidency against an ascendant far right.

Petro himself cannot run for consecutive terms under Colombian law. But there is speculation that Tuesday’s detente with Trump may help Petro’s coalition avoid US condemnation ahead of the vote.

Colombia, after all, was until recently the largest recipient of US aid in South America, and it has long harboured close ties with the North American superpower. Straining those ties could therefore be seen as an election liability.

While Petro acknowledged his differences with Trump during his remarks, at times he expressed certain views that overlapped with the US president’s.

Like Trump has in the past, Petro used part of his speech on Tuesday to question the role of the UN in maintaining global security.

“ Did it not show incapacity? Isn’t a reform needed?” Petro asked, wondering aloud if there was “something superior to the United Nations that would bring humanity together better in a better way”.

But when it came to donning Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, Petro drew a line – or rather, a squiggle.

On social media, he shared an adjustment he made to the cap’s slogan. A jagged, Sharpie-inked “S” amended the phrase to include the entire Western Hemisphere: “Make Americas Great Again.”

The ‘test’ of a new country

This longing is shared by Angelica Angel, a 24-year-old student activist in exile.

She had grown up with tear gas and police beatings in Venezuela. After all, she had started protesting at age 15.

“They’ve pointed their guns at me, beaten me and almost arrested me. That’s when you realise that these people have no limits: They target the elderly, women and even young girls,” Angel said.

But the increasing political repression ultimately made her life in Merida, a college town in western Venezuela, untenable.

After 2024’s disputed presidential election, Angel decided to voice her outrage on social media.

Maduro had claimed a third term in office, despite evidence that he had lost in a landslide. The opposition coalition obtained copies of more than 80 percent of the country’s voter tallies, showing that its candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, had won the race.

Protests again broke out, and again, Maduro’s government responded with force.

Military and security officers detained nearly 2,000 people, including opposition leaders, journalists and human rights lawyers.

When Angel denounced the arbitrary detentions on TikTok, she began receiving daily threats.

By day, anonymous phone calls warned her of her impending arrest. By night, she heard pro-government gangs on motorcycles circling her home.

Fearing detention, she fled to Colombia in August 2024, leaving her family and friends behind.

But living outside Venezuela gave her a new perspective. She came to realise that the threats, persecution and violence she had learned to live with were not normal in a democratic country.

“When you leave, you realise that it isn’t normal to be afraid of the police, of unknown phone calls,” said Angel, her voice trembling. “I’m afraid to go back to my country and to be in that reality again.”

For exiled Venezuelans to return safely, Angel believes certain benchmarks must be met. The interim government must end arbitrary detention and allow opposition members, many of whom fled Venezuela, to return.

Only then, she explained, will Venezuela have moved past Maduro’s legacy.

“Exiles being able to return is a real test of whether a new country is taking shape,” she said.

US President Donald Trump is set to welcome Colombian President Gustavo Petro only weeks after threatening military action against the South American country.

Donald Trump is expected to meet Colombian President Gustavo Petro on Tuesday after a year of exchanging insults and threats over the United States president’s aggressive foreign policies in Latin America, and Bogota’s war on drugs.

Petro’s visit to the White House in Washington, DC, on February 3 comes just one month after the US abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro in a lightning armed assault on Caracas.

The Colombian leader will likely be seeking to address diplomatic tensions with the US, which have been in disarray since Trump began his second term last year.

The 65-year-old left-wing Petro has been a vocal critic of Trump’s foreign policies and recent military operations in the Caribbean Sea as well as of Israel’s war on Gaza – a thorny topic for the US president.

Last month, tempers rose again when Trump threatened to target Colombia militarily for allegedly flooding the US with illegal drugs.

Have relations between the two always been frosty?

No. After Colombia gained independence from Spain in 1819, the US was one of the first countries to recognise Colombia’s independence in 1822. It established a diplomatic mission there in 1823.

A year later, the two nations signed a string of treaties focusing on peace, navigation and commerce, according to US government archives.

Since then, the two nations have continued to cooperate on security and economic matters. But these efforts have been interrupted at times, such as during the Cold War, by geopolitics and in relation to Colombia’s war on the drug trade.

Here is a timeline of key issues and events.

Business interests threatened

In 1928, US businesses were operating in Colombia. But their interests were threatened when Colombian employees of America’s United Fruit Company protested, demanding better working conditions. Political parties in Colombia had also begun questioning Washington’s expanding role in Latin America following these protests.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), this was also the period of the “Banana Wars” when Washington was busy toppling regimes in South America to shore up its business interests in the region.

A string of US military interventions took place from 1898 to 1934 as Washington sought to expand its economic interests in the region until President Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the “Good Neighbor Policy”, pledging not to invade or occupy Latin American countries or interfere in their internal affairs.

Emergence of FARC

Security relations between the US and Colombia deepened during the second world war. In 1943, Colombia offered its territory for US air and naval bases while Washington provided training for Colombian soldiers.

According to the CFR, the US boosted military support for Colombia during its deadly conflict with armed rebel groups, which lasted from 1948 until the mid-1950s and killed more than 200,000 people. During this conflict, many independent armed groups emerged in the countryside, and the US implemented a strategy known as Plan Lazo to improve civilian defence networks.

In response, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) was formed by rebel leaders and engaged in widespread violence and kidnappings, according to the CFR.

FARC claimed to be inspired by communist values and, in the late 1940s, controlled about 40 percent of the country, according to the CFR. Washington labelled it as a “terrorist” organisation and focused efforts towards destabilising the group.

FARC eventually signed a peace agreement with the Colombian government in 2016. In 2021, the group was delisted from Washington’s foreign terrorist organisations’ list.

War on drugs

As FARC was rising in Colombia, the drug trade was also gathering momentum. Groups such as the Medellin Cartel and Cali Cartel emerged in the country, and trafficked marijuana and cocaine to the US on a regular basis.

Faced with a rising number of drug-related deaths, the US government spent more than $10bn on counter-narcotics and security efforts to aid Colombia’s government between 1999 and 2018, according to a US Government Accountability Office report.

Former US presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W Bush, also launched counter-narcotic initiatives to disrupt drug trafficking, destroy coca crops, and support alternative livelihoods for coca farmers, in a bid to quash the cartels.

Trump’s first term as president, beginning in 2017, was marked by renewed counter-narcotic initiatives but he also threatened to decertify Colombia as a cooperative country if it did not take action against its drug cartels.

Tensions between the US and Colombia calmed under former US President Joe Biden, who focused on improving diplomatic ties by designating Colombia as a major non-NATO ally in 2022.

Today, cartels function in a decentralised manner and some have also been designated as terrorist organisations by the US. In December 2025, the Trump administration designated the Gulf Clan, Colombia’s largest illegal arms group, which is also involved in drug trafficking, as a terrorist organisation.

Trump’s second term

In 2022, Petro was elected as Colombia’s first left-wing president and took up office in the presidential palace with promises to lead Colombia in a more equitable, eco-friendly direction.

But tensions with the US flared again when Trump arrived in the White House for his second term in January 2025.

Since then, Petro has been a vocal critic of Trump’s policies, particularly those relating to Latin America.

Last year, the Trump administration began a series of military strikes on Venezuelan boats, which it alleged were carrying drugs, in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The Trump administration has struck dozens of boats, but has not provided any evidence that any were trafficking drugs. Petro called the aggression an “act of tyranny”.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025, Petro said that “criminal proceedings must be opened against those officials, who are from the US, even if it includes the highest-ranking official who gave the order: President Trump”, in relation to the boat strikes.

At the UNGA, Petro also criticised US ally Israel’s war on Gaza and called on US troops to “disobey Trump’s orders” and “obey the order of humanity”.

Washington revoked Petro’s US visa after he spoke at a pro-Palestine march outside the UNGA in New York.

Weeks later, the Trump administration also imposed sanctions on the Colombian president, who is set to leave office following a presidential election in May.

In a post on his Truth Social platform in October, Trump said Petro “does nothing” to stop the drug production [in his country], and so the US would no longer offer “payment or subsidies” to Colombia.

Shortly after carrying out the abduction of Venezuela’s Maduro, Trump told reporters on board Air Force One that both Venezuela and Colombia were “very sick” and that the government in Bogota was run by “a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States”. “And he’s not going to be doing it very long. Let me tell you,” Trump added.

When asked if he meant a US operation would take place against Colombia, Trump said, “Sounds good to me.”

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

In an interview with Al Jazeera on January 9, however, Petro said his government is seeking to maintain cooperation on combating narcotics with Washington, striking a softer tone following days of escalating rhetoric.

Oil becomes more meaningful when you turn it into fuel.

A barrel contains 159 litres of crude oil, or 42 gallons.

To use this oil, it must be refined. The refining process produces various products, including petrol, diesel, jet fuel and numerous household items, such as cleaning products, plastics and even lotions.

Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres, or 19.35 gallons, of petrol to power cars and trucks.

A pick-up truck that can drive 24 miles on 1 gallon of petrol, or 100km on 10 litres, can travel about 730km, or 450 miles, from one barrel of oil.

Put another way, one barrel of crude oil can fuel that pick-up on a trip from New York City to Cleveland, Ohio.

Now let’s scale that up to US national consumption. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the US has about 285 million motor vehicles and consumes nearly 9 million barrels of petrol every day.

If all of Venezuela’s crude oil were refined into petrol, it could supply US vehicles for roughly 40 years at today’s consumption rate.

Cuban diplomat says Havana is ready for dialogue with Washington, but certain things are off the table, including the constitution and its socialist government.

Cuba and the United States are in communication, but the exchanges have not yet evolved into a formal “dialogue”, a Cuban diplomat has said, as US President Donald Trump stepped up pressure on Havana.

Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, told the Reuters news agency on Monday that the US government was aware that Cuba was “ready to have a serious, meaningful and responsible dialogue”.

De Cossio’s statement represents the first hint from Havana that it is in contact with Washington, even if in a limited fashion, as tensions flared in recent weeks amid Trump’s threats against the Cuban government in the aftermath of the US military’s abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Cuba’s longstanding ally.

“We have had exchange of messages, we have embassies, we have had communications, but we cannot say we have had a table of dialogue,” de Cossio said.

In a separate interview with The Associated Press news agency, De Cossio said, “If we can have a dialogue, maybe that can lead to negotiation.”

The deputy minister also stressed that certain issues are off the table for Cuba, including the country’s constitution, economy, and its socialist system of government.

On Sunday, Trump indicated that the US had begun talks with “the highest people in Cuba”.

“I think we’re going to make a deal with Cuba,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Days earlier, Trump had referred to Cuba in an executive order as “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security, and warned other countries he would impose more tariffs on them if they supplied oil to Cuba.

On Monday, Trump reverted to issuing threats to Havana, announcing at the White House that Mexico “is going to cease” sending oil to Cuba, a move that could starve the country of its energy needs.

Mexico, which has yet to comment on Trump’s latest statement, is the largest supplier of oil to Cuba.

Mexico had repeatedly said that it would not stop shipping oil to Cuba for humanitarian reasons, but also expressed concern that it could face reprisals from Trump over its policy.

In recent weeks, the US has moved to block all oil from reaching Cuba, including from Cuba’s ally Venezuela, pushing up prices for food and transportation and prompting severe fuel shortages and hours of blackouts, even in the capital, Havana.

Responding to Trump’s threat regarding oil supplies, Cuba’s De Cossio said that the move would eventually backfire.

“The US… is attempting to force every country in the world not to provide fuel to Cuba. Can that be sustained in the long run?” de Cossio said to Reuters.

The US has imposed decades of crushing sanctions on Cuba, but a crippling economic crisis on the island and stepped-up pressure from the Trump administration have recently brought the conflict to a head.

All about the numbers

The Petro administration has also continued to target criminal networks that traffic in cocaine through arrests and the seizure of shipments.

In November, Petro announced the Colombian government had made its largest drug bust in a decade, with law enforcement nabbing nearly 14 tonnes of cocaine.

Gloria Miranda was appointed by Petro in 2024 to lead Colombia’s Directorate for the Substitution of Illicit Crops, the agency overseeing the voluntary eradication efforts.

She believes that the Petro administration’s efforts have been mischaracterised as ineffective.

“There’s been a narrative that Colombia isn’t doing anything in the fight against drug trafficking,” she told Al Jazeera.

“But we’ve seized 276,000 kilogrammes [608,500 pounds] of cocaine, destroyed 18,000 laboratories, arrested 164,000 people, and are replacing more than 30,000 hectares [about 74,100 acres] of illicit crops.”

But critics — including Trump — argue Petro’s measures have yet to translate into results. Coca cultivation and cocaine production remain stubbornly at record levels.

According to the latest United Nations figures, coca cultivation rose in Colombia by about 10 percent in 2023. Potential cocaine output also jumped 53 percent to about 2,600 tonnes.

Petro has questioned the accuracy of those numbers, though. Last week, ahead of Petro’s meeting with Trump, his government announced it would no longer use the United Nations figures, arguing that they rely on an “obscure statistical method”.

Michael Weintraub, the director of the Center for the Study of Security and Drugs (CESED) at the University of the Andes, told Al Jazeera that some of Petro’s pushback is political.

But he added that there is a genuine basis for questioning the UN’s methodology.

“The ‘potential cocaine production’ measure has a lot of baked-in assumptions that make it very difficult to trust,” Weintraub said.

It predicts coca production from selected plots, but yields vary by region and season. The UN itself has admitted there are limitations in its method.

Despite these concerns, coca cultivation in Colombia has trended upward for decades.

Analysts note one overriding factor: demand. Consumption in North America and Europe remains strong, and new markets have emerged in Asia, Africa and South America.

“Coca can only grow in limited places due to climate, soil and elevation,” Weintraub said. “So Colombia is likely to remain a major producer for the foreseeable future.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Right-wing candidate from the governing PPSO leads presidential race with 53.01 percent of the vote, early results show.

The right-wing law-and-order candidate, Laura Fernandez, has taken a commanding lead in Costa Rica’s presidential election, according to early results.

With ballots from 31 percent of polling stations counted late on Sunday, Fernandez, of the governing Sovereign People Party (PPSO), had 53.01 percent of the vote, the results showed.

Alvaro Ramos of the centre-left National Liberation Party ‍was in second place ⁠with 30.05 percent, while former First Lady Claudia Dobles was in third place with 3.9 percent.

Fernandez ‌needs at ‌least 40 percent to win the election outright and avoid ‌a run-off on April 5.

The 39-year-old politician is the handpicked successor of incumbent President Rodrigo Chaves, and campaigned on continuing his tough security policies.

The historically peaceful Central American nation’s crime surge in recent years could be a deciding factor for many voters. Some fault Chaves’s presidency for failing to bring the rates down, but many see his confrontational style as the best chance for Costa Rica to tame the violence.

Fernandez was previously Chaves’s minister of national planning and economic policy and, more recently, his minister of the presidency.

Costa Ricans also voted for the 57-seat National Assembly. Chaves’s party is expected to make gains, but perhaps not achieve the supermajority he and Fernandez have called for, which would allow their party to choose Supreme Court magistrates, for example.

Twenty contenders were seeking the presidency, but no candidate other than Fernandez and Ramos reached 5 percent in the preliminary and partial results.

Tarazona freed after four years in prison on ‘terrorism’ and conspiracy charges.

Venezuelan rights ‍activist Javier Tarazona has been freed ‍in a prisoner release, his family says, more than four years since he was arrested.

“After 1675 days, 4 years and 7 months, this long-awaited day has arrived. My brother Javier Tarazona is free,” Jose Rafael Tarazona posted on X on Sunday. “One person’s freedom is everyone’s hope.”

Legal rights group Foro Penal said several other prisoners had been released with Tarazona from the Helicoide detention centre in Caracas. The group said it has ​verified more than 300 political prisoners freed since the government announced a series of releases on January 8.

Venezuelan interim President Delcy Rodriguez on Friday unveiled a proposed “amnesty law” covering hundreds of prisoners and said the Helicoide prison – long condemned by rights groups as a site of prisoner abuse – will be transformed into a sports and social services complex.

Translation: Today, #1Feb, after 1675 days, 4 years and 7 months, this long-awaited day has arrived. My brother Javier Tarazona is FREE. THANKS BE TO GOD ALMIGHTY. Thank you to everyone who made this moment possible. One person’s freedom is everyone’s hope. #FreeToLiberate

Tarazona is the director of FundaRedes, which tracks alleged abuses by Colombian armed groups and the Venezuelan military along the countries’ border. He was arrested in July 2021 and accused of “terrorism” and conspiracy.

Government officials – who deny holding political prisoners and say those jailed have committed crimes – have given a much higher figure for the releases, saying there have been more than 600, but have not been clear about the timeline and appear to be including releases from previous years. The government has never provided an official list of how many prisoners will be released or who they are.

Families of prisoners said the releases have progressed too slowly, and Foro Penal said more than 700 political prisoners remain jailed, an updated ​count including prisoners whose fearful families had not previously reported their detentions.

Families and rights advocates have long ‌demanded the charges and convictions against detainees who are considered political prisoners be revoked.

Opposition politicians, journalists and rights activists have long been subject to charges like “terrorism” and treason, which their families have called unjust and arbitrary.

The proposed amnesty law could affect hundreds of detainees who remain behind bars in the ‌South American country as well as former prisoners who have already been conditionally released.

The releases were announced as the top United States envoy for Venezuela arrived in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, to reopen a US diplomatic mission seven years after ties were severed.

Last month, the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from the presidential palace in Caracas on the orders of US President Donald Trump.

Maduro was then taken to a prison in New York and is facing drug trafficking and “narcoterrorism” conspiracy charges.

Laura Fernandez, President Rodrigo Chaves’s protege and former chief of staff, is a frontrunner and could avoid an April 5 run-off.

Polls have opened in the Costa Rica general election as the ‍centre-right populist government seeks to extend its mandate and secure control of the Legislative Assembly at a time when drug-fuelled violence has gripped the country.

Voting stations opened at 6am local time (12:00 GMT) on Sunday and will remain open until 6pm (24:00 GMT), with early trends likely within hours.

Laura Fernandez, President Rodrigo Chaves’s protege and former chief of staff, is leading in the polls ⁠with more than 40 percent, enough to win outright and avoid an April 5 run-off. ​She has pledged to continue Chaves’s tough security policies and anti-establishment message.

Her closest ‍rivals in the 20-candidate field are Alvaro Ramos, a centrist economist representing Costa Rica’s oldest political party, and Claudia Dobles, an architect representing a progressive coalition and a former first lady whose husband, Carlos Alvarado, ‍served as president ⁠from 2018 to 2022.

Both are polling in the single digits but are seen as the two most likely to compete in a possible run-off if Fernandez falls short of 40 percent.

Fernandez has also urged voters to hand her 40 seats in the country’s 57-seat Legislative Assembly, a supermajority that would allow her to pursue constitutional reforms. The current government holds just eight seats and has blamed ​congressional gridlock for blocking its agenda.

Polls show about a ‌quarter of the 3.7 million voters remain undecided, with the largest group being between the ages of 18 and 34 and from the coastal provinces of Guanacaste, Puntarenas and Limon.

“People are tired of promises from all the governments, including ‌this one, even though the government has said things that are true, like needing stronger laws to restore order,” said Yheison ‌Ugarte, a 26-year-old deliveryman from downtown Limon, a Caribbean ⁠port city that has been the hardest hit by drug violence.

Despite homicides surging to an all-time high during his term and multiple corruption investigations, Chaves remains deeply popular, with a 58 percent approval rating, according to the University of Costa ‌Rica’s CIEP polling.

While consecutive re-election is not allowed in Costa Rica, Fernandez has pledged to include Chaves in her government and positioned herself as the continuity of his mandate.

From farmers protesting in Europe against a trade agreement between the European Union and the South American bloc Mercosur to deadly attacks in Pakistan’s Balochistan province that killed nearly 200 people and demonstrations in Cuba opposing threats by the United States, here is a look at the week in photos.

Laura Dogu’s visit comes as Venezuela moves to privatise its oil sector under pressure from Trump.

The top United States envoy for Venezuela has arrived in Caracas to reopen a US diplomatic mission seven years after ties were severed.

Laura Dogu announced her arrival in a post on X on Saturday, saying, “My team and I are ready to work.”

The move comes almost one month after US forces abducted Venezuela’s then-president, Nicolas Maduro, from the presidential palace in Caracas, on the orders of US President Donald Trump.

Maduro was then taken to a prison in New York, and is facing drug trafficking and narcoterrorism conspiracy charges.

The move has been widely criticised as a violation of international law.

Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs Yvan Gil wrote on Telegram that he had received Dogu, and that talks would centre on creating a “roadmap on matters of bilateral interest” as well as “addressing and resolving existing differences through diplomatic dialogue and on the basis of mutual respect and international law”.

Dogu, who previously served as US ambassador to Honduras and Nicaragua, was appointed to the role of charge d’affaires to the Venezuela Affairs Unit, based out of the US Embassy in Bogota, Colombia.

Venezuela and the US broke off diplomatic relations in February 2019, in a decision by Maduro after Trump gave public support to Venezuelan lawmaker Juan Guaido, who claimed to be the nation’s interim president in January that year.

Minister of the Popular Power for Interior Diosdado Cabello, one of Venezuela’s most powerful politicians and a Maduro loyalist, said earlier in January that reopening the US embassy in Caracas would give the Venezuelan government a way to oversee the treatment of the deposed president.

Although the Trump administration has claimed that Maduro’s abduction was necessary for security reasons, officials have also repeatedly framed their interests in Venezuela around controlling its vast oil reserves, which are the largest in the world.

Since the abduction, Trump has pressured Interim President Delcy Rodriguez to open the country’s nationalised oil sector to US firms.

The two countries have reached ‌a deal to export up ⁠to $2bn worth of Venezuelan crude to the US, and on Thursday, Rodriguez signed into law a reform bill that will pave the way for increased privatisation.

The legislation gives private firms control over the sale and production of Venezuelan oil, and requires legal disputes to be resolved outside of Venezuelan courts, a change long sought by foreign companies, which argue that the judicial system in the country is dominated by the governing socialist party.

The bill would also cap royalties collected by the government at 30 percent.

The Trump administration said on the same day that it would loosen some sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector, and allow limited transactions by the country’s government and the state oil company PDVSA that were necessary for a laundry list of export-related activities involving an “established US entity”.

Trump has announced that he ordered the reopening of Venezuela’s commercial airspace and “informed” Rodriguez that US oil companies would soon arrive to explore potential projects in the country.

On Friday, Rodriguez announced an amnesty bill aimed at releasing hundreds of prisoners in the country, and said she would shut down El Helicoide, an infamous secret service prison in Caracas, to be replaced with a sports and cultural centre.

That move was one of the key demands of the Venezuelan opposition.

It all started with a direct US attack on Venezuela earlier this month.

Back then, US President Donald Trump made it clear that he was only interested in the country’s substantial oil reserves.

On Thursday, the government in Caracas announced a massive overhaul of the petroleum sector.

Venezuela’s interim president has signed a law easing state control and opening the door for private firms to invest in the country.

For many, it paves the way for US oil giants to return to Venezuela with significant investments.

But who will stand to gain from the changes, Venezuela or the United States? Or both?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests

Elias Ferrer – founder and director of Orinoco Research

Andrew Lipow – president of Lipow Oil Associates

Phil Gunson – senior analyst at the International Crisis Group