President Donald Trump’s administration just dropped a diplomatic bombshell by revoking the visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro after his fiery rhetoric at a pro-Palestinian protest in New York City.
Reuters reported that on Friday, Petro’s visa was pulled by the State Department following his controversial call for American soldiers to defy orders, an incident that unfolded during a protest near Times Square while he was in town for a United Nations meeting.
Let’s rewind to earlier in the week—Petro was in New York for a UN meeting, where on Tuesday, he used his platform to criticize U.S. military strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
He lamented the loss of what he called “poor young people” in these operations, a statement that already raised eyebrows among conservative circles for its pointed jab at American policy. One has to wonder if this was the warm-up act for his later street-side theatrics.
Fast forward to Friday, September 26, 2025, when Petro took to the streets near Times Square, joining a pro-Palestinian protest and delivering a speech that could only be described as a diplomatic grenade.
“That is why, from here in New York, I ask all soldiers in the United States army not to point their rifles at humanity. Disobey Trump’s order!” he declared, seemingly urging outright insubordination.
Now, let’s be fair—passions run high on issues like Gaza, and Petro’s frustration is palpable, but calling for U.S. troops to disobey orders on American soil as a foreign leader is a step too far. It’s not just reckless; it’s a direct challenge to national sovereignty, and it’s no surprise the State Department didn’t let it slide.
By Friday night, as Colombian media reported Petro was already en route back to Bogota, the State Department made its move, officially revoking his visa.
The administration has a track record of pulling immigration papers for pro-Palestinian activists, though none have matched Petro’s high profile. This wasn’t just a slap on the wrist; it was a clear message.
The backlash from Republican lawmakers was swift, even before the visa decision, with figures like Sen. Rick Scott and Rep. Carlos Gimenez condemning Petro’s words as incitement.
Gimenez didn’t mince words, accusing Petro of having “no place” in the U.S. for such rhetoric—a sentiment many on the right likely share when a guest oversteps this boldly.
Petro, for his part, didn’t stay quiet, firing back on Saturday morning, September 27, 2025, with visible anger over the visa cancellation. He argued that his opinions are protected under international law due to his UN visit immunity and insisted he’s a “free being” entitled to speak.
While he’s not wrong about diplomatic norms, urging military disobedience might stretch that privilege past its breaking point. Interestingly, Petro also noted he holds European citizenship, which he claims allows visa-free travel to the U.S.
Whether this will hold up or if he’ll still face entry barriers remains unclear, but it’s a curious loophole in an already messy situation. One can’t help but smirk at the irony of a leader decrying U.S. policy while banking on a workaround to return.
Meanwhile, the broader context of U.S.-Latin American tensions looms large, with American warships positioned off Venezuela’s coast to combat drug trafficking.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has decried this as a “criminal and bloody threat,” escalating regional friction. Petro’s earlier UN comments on Caribbean strikes tie into this, painting him as a vocal critic of U.S. military moves.
Back to Petro’s protest remarks—while his heart might be in advocating for peace, the delivery was a diplomatic disaster. Calling for soldiers to defy orders isn’t advocacy; it’s a dangerous overreach that undermines the very stability he claims to champion. A little restraint could have kept his message from becoming a geopolitical flashpoint.
Conservatives will likely see this visa revocation as a necessary stand against foreign leaders meddling in U.S. affairs, and they’re not wrong to bristle at Petro’s audacity.
Yet, there’s room for empathy—global issues like Gaza stir deep emotions, and Petro’s frustration, however poorly expressed, reflects a real human concern. The challenge is balancing that empathy with accountability.
The State Department’s decision isn’t just about Petro; it’s a signal to other world leaders that there are lines you don’t cross on U.S. soil. Previous revocations for lesser-known protesters set the precedent, but targeting a sitting president elevates the stakes. It’s a bold reminder that free speech has limits when it veers into incitement.