Colombian President Gustavo Petro stirred up a firestorm on Monday with a brazen suggestion to "get rid" of former U.S. President Donald Trump. This sharp rhetoric, aired during an interview with Univision, has escalated an already tense feud between the two leaders.
As reported by The Daily Caller, Petro's comments came after Trump threatened on Sunday to shut down what he called "killing fields" in Colombia and cut U.S. subsidies over a Sept. 15 military strike on a suspected drug boat. This latest clash is just one in a series of bitter exchanges that reveal deep policy divides.
The bad blood between Trump and Petro began in January when the Colombian leader blocked two U.S. military flights carrying deported immigrants from landing in his country. Trump fired back with a threat to slap a 25% tariff on Colombian imports, with a warning it could jump to 50% in a week if Petro didn't comply.
Under pressure from Trump's tariff threat, Petro eventually agreed to accept the deportation flights, though only under specific conditions. The tariffs, for now, remain off the table, but the resentment clearly lingers.
Fast forward to Sunday, when Trump accused Petro of being an "illegal drug leader" who promotes "massive production of drugs" that wreak "death, destruction and havoc" in the U.S. That harsh language, posted on Truth Social, shows no sign of diplomatic restraint.
Petro's response to Univision was equally unfiltered, saying, "Humanity has a first off-ramp, and it is to change Trump in various ways." His follow-up, suggesting that if Trump doesn't change, the world should "get rid of" him, raises serious questions about what exactly he meant and how far he'd go.
The Sept. 15 U.S. military strike on a vessel suspected of carrying drugs to American shores, and tied to the Colombian rebel group Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), was the spark for this latest spat. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed the boat's alleged connections, underscoring the high stakes of these operations.
Trump didn't mince words on Sunday, declaring that Petro, "a low rated and very unpopular leader," must "close up these killing fields immediately" or face U.S. intervention that "won't be done nicely." Such a threat signals a willingness to escalate beyond mere words.
Since Sept. 2, the U.S. has conducted multiple strikes on boats linked to designated terrorist groups and drug trafficking, including one carrying 11 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. These actions highlight a broader campaign against narco-terrorism that Petro seems unwilling to fully support.
Petro's accusation that the U.S. is guilty of "murder" over the Sept. 15 strike is a bold claim, but it sidesteps Colombia's own role in the drug trade that fuels violence on both sides of the border. If he's serious about humanity's "off-ramp," perhaps he should focus on curbing the cartels rather than targeting Trump with reckless language.
That call to "get rid of" Trump isn't just a poor choice of words; it's a dangerous provocation from a leader whose own popularity is reportedly flagging. One has to wonder if Petro is more interested in grandstanding for domestic applause than solving the real issues at hand.
Meanwhile, Trump's blunt style, while hardly diplomatic, reflects a frustration many Americans share about foreign leaders who criticize U.S. policy while benefiting from its aid. Petro's defiance might play well in some circles, but it risks alienating a powerful ally.
This tit-for-tat between Trump and Petro serves no one, least of all the people caught in the crossfire of drug violence and economic hardship. Both leaders seem more intent on scoring points than finding common ground on a crisis that demands cooperation.
For now, Petro's inflammatory suggestion hangs in the air, unanswered but impossible to ignore. It's a stark reminder that words from world leaders carry weight far beyond a single interview.
The U.S.-Colombia relationship, already strained, doesn't need more fuel on the fire. If Petro truly wants change, he might start with dialogue, not veiled threats against a former president who still wields significant influence.
