Latin American Presidents Aren’t Having It:
Petro vs. Trump and the Hypocrisy of U.S. Immigration Policy
Photo by David Peinado from Pexels.
On January 26th, Colombian President Gustavo Petro and President Donald Trump engaged in a tense standoff that nearly led to a trade war between the two nations. The issue? Two military flights carrying Colombian deportees were turned away by Petro, forcing one to turn back mid-flight. The incident came days after a huge controversy over Brazilian deportees in a harrowing flight marked by mechanical failures, extreme heat, and inhumane conditions, forcing an emergency landing in Manaus. Many were outraged by the sight of deportees shackled and chained while being escorted by U.S. immigration officers on Brazilian soil, to the point that even Brazilian President Lula da Silva and his government’s ministers publicly criticized the Trump administration’s handling of the deportees as “unacceptable” and “degrading”.
In response, Petro posted on his X account that his government would only accept deportees on civilian airplanes, ensuring they would not be treated as criminals." He emphasized that immigrating is not a crime and that deportees must be treated with dignity. His statement unleashed an aggressive response by President Trump, threatening to impose 25% tariffs on all Colombian incoming goods, which would be raised to 50% in one week, along with visa sanctions and enhanced customs and border security inspections for all nationals and cargo shipments from Colombia.
After a tense back-and-forth of tweets between the two leaders, where Petro also threatened to retaliate with a 25% increase in Colombian tariffs on U.S. goods and claimed that Colombia is “not anyone’s colony”, Colombia backed down and agreed to all of President Trump’s terms. The alternative would have had severe consequences for the Colombian economy, given that the U.S. is its largest trading partner. Potential impacts included significant disruptions for thousands of Colombian coffee growers, devaluation of the peso, and a decline in direct foreign investment.
However, it is worth noting that even within Colombia, this standoff was highly polarizing as many praised Petro for standing up for Colombian immigrants, while others criticized the double standards underlying his refusal to cooperate with right-wing authoritarian figures like Trump, while openly cooperating with left-wing dictators like Nicolas Maduro. Some argue that political pressure within Petro’s government was the real reason behind his decision to back down from the threats.
The situation suggests that Colombia was the first country to be openly humiliated by the new Trump administration. It’s unfortunate that when a government calls for its people to be treated with dignity and respect, this administration responds by threatening to destroy their economy. From my perspective, this situation raises a crucial question: Does President Trump view Latin American nations as strategic allies, or are they simply seen as problems to be dealt with, with their people unworthy of dignity or respect?
It’s unreasonable to dismiss Petro’s and Lula’s petitions as exaggerated, as they are simply asking for fair and respectful treatment of their deportees, especially considering the xenophobic and racist rhetoric that has characterized President Trump’s mass deportations. In fact, it was recently revealed that among the 200 deportees who returned to Colombia on Tuesday were two pregnant women and more than 20 children. Notably, none of its passengers had criminal records in the U.S. or Colombia.
This hostile narrative has been backed by the administration’s stand on policies against immigrant communities. It is no secret that President Trump ran on a protectionist and xenophobic campaign that singled out the immigrant community as the source of all the nation's problems. This administration has relentlessly demonized the immigrant community in the United States, despite the significant contributions they have made to the country. It is well known that the construction, agriculture, hospitality, healthcare, and manufacturing industries rely heavily on immigrant labor, not to mention the social, cultural, and academic contributions that these immigrants and their children have made to the country's progress. However, the use of terms like 'illegal aliens' dehumanize an entire population, portraying them as criminals in order to justify their unfair treatment. This perspective ignores the blatant hypocrisy of harshly persecuting foreign criminals while granting special treatment to white criminals, particularly those who tend to storm government buildings in insurrection attempts.
Don’t think that these actions won’t have consequences for how the U.S. is perceived in Latin America. Growing discontent towards Americans has been simmering for a long time over the unprecedented migration of U.S. citizens to the region. Yes, I’m talking about gentrification. Characterized by your everyday Digital Nomads and Passport Bros that move to Mexico City, Costa Rica, San Juan, Medellin, and other Latin American destinations to take advantage of the devalued peso, while raising the cost of living and displacing locals, but failing to contribute to the host nation’s economy in the same way Latino immigrants contribute to the U.S. Many of them don’t even have a legal status in the country they are in, according to a recent address by Petro, in Colombia alone, 15,000 Americans are living in the country without authorization.
So, my question is, should they be treated the same way? Put on military airplanes, chained at their hands and feet, and being profusely humiliated by a foreign government when all they wanted to do was a better life for themselves?
In case you’re wondering, the answer is no.
Because no one should be treated so horrendously solely based on their immigration status.
Now, add this to the administration's disregard and disrespect toward the Latino immigrant community, and it should come as no surprise if another wave of anti-American sentiment arises in the region. This could also validate experts' concerns that China may step in as an alternative imperial superpower for the region to rely on.
On a broader scale, however, this administration appears to follow a longstanding trend in U.S.-Latin America relations, where countries in the region are treated as problems to be managed rather than as allies and equal partners vital to the strategic development and growth of the Western Hemisphere. The discontent is evident in the resistance from Latin American leaders and their responses to some of Trump's comments and demands.
In the case of Mexico, this dynamic is evident in several instances. President Claudia Sheinbaum responded to the threat of tariffs by asserting that their relationship with the U.S. is “one of equals”. Her administration also categorically rejected U.S. accusations of cartel links within her government, instead arguing that if any such alliance exists, it is in the United States gun factories that sell high-powered weapons to these criminal groups. She even poked fun at the absurd renaming of the Gulf of Mexico.
Similarly, Honduran President Xiomara Castro pushed back against Trump’s mass deportation plan, threatening to expel a U.S. military base that has existed in the country for decades. Furthermore, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino responded to Trump’s suggestion of reclaiming the Panama Canal by kindly reminding him that the sovereignty and independence of Panama are non-negotiable and that every square foot of the Panama Canal and its adjacent zones belongs to Panama.
This joint resistance by Latin American leaders, particularly from the left, makes me wonder if these countries will be able to resist the mistreatment of their people in the U.S. or if they will continue to be forced to comply with Trump's agenda through highly dangerous and disruptive economic threats.
Ultimately, this standoff between Petro and Trump demonstrates the imbalance of power in U.S.-Latin America relations, where economic leverage is weaponized to force compliance. While Petro’s attempt to demand dignity for Colombian deportees was outstanding, the backlash and severe retaliation from the U.S. demonstrated how little room Latin American leaders have to push back without facing economic devastation. The broader resistance from regional leaders suggests a shifting dynamic, but whether this defiance will lead to meaningful change, or simply more coercion remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the mistreatment of immigrants reflects a troubling disregard for human dignity that will have uncertain consequences as the Trump administration continues to attack its neighbors and closest allies.