The United States has revoked the visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro following what officials described as his “reckless and incendiary actions” in New York. The controversy unfolded during a pro-Palestinian demonstration held outside the United Nations headquarters, coinciding with the U.N. General Assembly meetings. At the rally, Petro delivered a speech in which he urged U.S. soldiers to “obey the orders of humanity” rather than follow directives from President Donald Trump. He also called for the creation of an international force stronger than the United States to “liberate Palestinians,” remarks Washington interpreted as a direct challenge to U.S. authority.
The State Department’s decision marks a significant escalation in already strained relations between Petro’s government and the Trump administration. Tensions had previously surfaced over disputes on migration, drug enforcement policies, and earlier threats of U.S. visa restrictions. By framing Petro’s comments as dangerous and destabilizing, the U.S. has signaled a tougher stance not only toward Colombia’s president but also toward any foreign leader who uses American soil to promote actions contrary to U.S. policy.
Petro responded sharply to the move, accusing the United States of violating diplomatic norms and undermining the immunity traditionally afforded to heads of state attending U.N. events. He questioned whether New York should remain the headquarters of the United Nations, suggesting that the institution might be better placed in a neutral country to prevent such incidents from recurring. His remarks highlight a broader debate over U.S. control of diplomatic access, particularly when world leaders face restrictions while attending international forums in the country.
The revocation of Petro’s visa raises complex legal and diplomatic questions. Under the U.N. headquarters agreement, member states are expected to guarantee access for foreign representatives attending official U.N. functions. However, the U.S. retains the power to grant or withdraw visas on national security and foreign policy grounds. This clash between international obligations and sovereign authority could spark discussions within the U.N. on whether the organization should explore relocating its headquarters outside the United States.
Looking ahead, the fallout from this decision may reverberate through U.S.-Colombian relations. Bogotá could consider symbolic or diplomatic countermeasures, while Petro’s rhetoric is likely to rally his domestic base by portraying him as a defender of sovereignty and international justice. At the same time, the move serves as a warning to other leaders that provocative statements directed at U.S. policies or institutions while on American soil may carry direct consequences.