The historic alliance between the United States and Colombia is facing one of its most delicate moments. On Thursday, both governments recalled their top diplomatic representatives for consultations, a gesture confirming the escalation of tensions and marking yet another episode of mutual distrust.

Although the political differences between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, are obvious, the reality is that both share leadership styles that make understanding even harder.

The spark that ignited this latest clash was the revelation of an alleged plot to overthrow Petro, reportedly involving Colombian and U.S. political figures.

According to the Spanish newspaper El País, leaked audio recordings suggest that Álvaro Leyva, Colombia’s former foreign minister and a former Petro ally, was coordinating with Republican members of Congress to conspire against the leftist government. Although Colombian prosecutors are investigating the case, the controversy has already had immediate diplomatic repercussions.

Washington responded by urgently recalling its chargé d’affaires in Bogotá, John McNamara. In a statement, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce called the accusations made by “the highest-ranking officials in the Colombian government” “reprehensible and baseless,” without specifying which statements she was referring to.

Petro’s response came swiftly: he also recalled his ambassador in Washington, Daniel García-Peña, further deepening the crisis.

Although the Colombian president clarified on Thursday that he does not believe U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is involved in a coup attempt—“I don’t believe a government that has Iran as an enemy and nuclear bombs pointed [at it] would waste time screwing around with a coup d’état in Colombia,” he said in colloquial terms—the tension had already set in.

This episode is just the latest in a long string of disagreements. The mass deportation of Colombian migrants from the U.S., Bogotá’s refusal to extradite guerrilla fighters wanted on drug trafficking charges, and Petro’s decision to deepen commercial ties with China by joining the Belt and Road Initiative are just some of the flashpoints.

Washington watches these moves with suspicion as it weighs whether to renew Colombia’s certification as a reliable partner in the fight against drugs, at a time when the country is setting global records for cocaine production.

The erosion of mutual trust is happening as both presidents are embroiled in domestic controversies. Trump has turned his reelection campaign into a referendum on his governing style and his promise of a tough stance on immigration and crime.

Petro, for his part, is dealing with a cabinet crisis marked by the departure of more than 50 ministers in three years. The latest resignation came from Foreign Minister Laura Sarabia, a key figure in the president’s inner circle. Although she stepped down mainly due to disagreements over a contract to print passports, the absence of a visible head of Colombian diplomacy complicates any effort to ease tensions.

Paradoxically, beyond ideological differences, Trump and Petro share traits that fuel confrontation. Both emerged as outsiders who promised to topple traditional elites: Trump with his “drain the swamp” rhetoric in Washington, Petro with his pledge to break with “200 years of oligarchy.”

In both cases, the figure of the leader dominates politics and becomes the absolute center of loyalty, while critics are branded as enemies of the people.

Polarization is another common thread. Trump cemented his power by dividing the country between “patriots” and “traitors.” Petro, in his own way, has done much the same by accusing opponents, the media, and oversight bodies of sabotaging his agenda.

Their relationship with the press also reflects this similarity: Trump made CNN and The New York Times favorite targets of his attacks; Petro has openly clashed with outlets like El Tiempo and Semana, blaming them for spreading disinformation.

This climate of mistrust and hostility means that any disagreement—on drug policy or trade, for example—can quickly escalate into a diplomatic crisis. The letter sent Thursday by 30 Colombian lawmakers to the U.S. Congress calling for an investigation into three Republican representatives over “interventionist actions” is just one example of how domestic politics in both countries is bleeding into bilateral tensions.

Meanwhile, rhetorical gestures continue to escalate on both sides. Republican Congressman Carlos Giménez called Petro a “socialist narcoterrorist” on X. Petro responded defiantly: “I don’t kneel or allow myself to be pressured, nor am I intimidated by a congressman calling me a narcoterrorist.”

With a little over a year left in his term, Gustavo Petro is betting on consolidating his legacy with a peace agenda and social reforms that Washington views with suspicion. Meanwhile, Donald Trump maintains the hardline approach that defines him as a populist right-wing figure, stretching the limits of traditional diplomacy.

The relationship between the two countries—strategic partners that for decades enjoyed a stable bond—is entering unpredictable territory. And in this scenario, the similarities between their presidents, more than their differences, appear to be fueling the conflict.

Con información de AFP