The mayors of Medellin and Cali traveled this week to Washington to make a case for Colombia’s anti-drug certification, despite President Petro’s disapproval. The possibility that Colombia could lose its U.S. anti-drug certification — a sanction not imposed since the 1990s — has shaken political circles in Bogota and beyond. Such a move by the U.S. would not only undermine bilateral cooperation but also jeopardize millions in U.S. funding for counternarcotics programs, social initiatives, and local security projects.
What began as a mission to safeguard cooperation and draw attention to urgent urban security crises quickly snowballed into a bitter dispute with President Gustavo Petro, who accused the local leaders of stepping into diplomatic territory that belongs exclusively to the executive branch.
Fewer Colombian mayors than expected went to Washington
The trip was conceived in late August as concerns mounted over rising violence in Colombia’s major cities and the looming risk of Washington reconsidering its anti-drug certification. Medellin Mayor Federico Gutierrez and Cali Mayor Alejandro Eder were joined by plans from Bogota’s Carlos Fernando Galan, Barranquilla’s Alejandro Char, and Cartagena’s Dumek Turbay. The group intended to present a united front in Washington, meeting with U.S. lawmakers, NGOs, and think tanks to discuss public safety, migration, and investment opportunities.
For the mayors, the logic was straightforward: if Colombia’s national government was faltering in its relationship with Washington, cities had to step in to protect their own international partnerships. “We came here because our communities are bleeding, and Bogota [Petro] doesn’t listen,” said one of the mayors before the trip. “Washington listens faster than our own president does.”
Still, not everyone who signed on to the mission ultimately boarded the plane. Galan, Bogotá’s mayor, canceled days earlier due to commitments with the Inter-American Development Bank. Char stayed in Barranquilla, citing obligations at home, including the inauguration of a park in a working-class neighborhood. Turbay, for his part, was blocked from leaving Cartagena by a passport issue.
In a statement, Turbay was adamant that the initiative was legitimate and necessary. He underscored that the invitation had come from U.S. members of Congress, not from partisan groups, and that his focus was on attracting investment and strengthening local cooperation. “The bilateral ties between Cartagena and the United States are historic and bipartisan,” he said. “As mayor, it is my duty to strengthen those bonds of cooperation, especially with our principal trading partner and largest source of tourists.”
Turbay also pointed out that U.S. agencies and NGOs have worked in Cartagena for more than three decades, funding social, economic, and humanitarian programs. “Protecting and expanding those ties is not only appropriate, it is part of the mayor’s responsibility,” he argued.
Petro and his cabinet push back
The Petro administration reacted with fury. For the president and his allies, the mayors’ trip was an affront, a deliberate attempt to weaken the government’s negotiating position with Washington just as the White House and State Department were reviewing Colombia’s anti-drug performance.
Interior Minister Armando Benedetti quickly announced legal action. “I will denounce the mayors who are in Washington for usurpation of functions,” he wrote on X. “Could it also be abandonment of office? They are taking over responsibilities that belong exclusively to the national government.” Petro himself was even more direct, accusing the local leaders of crossing constitutional lines. “An elected mayor can travel wherever he wants,” the president declared. “But if he takes on foreign policy functions that belong constitutionally to the president, he commits a crime.”
Gutierrez, who has long been one of Petro’s most outspoken critics, did not back down. “The mayors are not employees of President Petro,” the Medellin mayor said before boarding his flight. “We were elected by citizens. Our duty is to manage the best opportunities for our cities, and that is exactly what we are doing.”
Legal scholars sided with the mayors, noting that Colombian law requires city leaders to seek authorization from their municipal councils, not the national executive, when traveling abroad. “What they cannot do is present themselves as spokespeople for the government of Colombia,” explained constitutional lawyer Andres Usuga. “But Washington understands that — they are meeting the mayors as local leaders representing their own cities. That does not violate the law.”
Colombian mayors on the ground in Washington
Once in Washington, Gutierrez and Eder worked to draw a clear line between their municipal missions and the heated national debate over drug certification. “It is not our role to intervene in discussions about certification or decertification,” Gutierrez told reporters. “That is a decision for the governments of Colombia and the United States. Our agenda is focused on cooperation and investment for Medellin.”
Eder, mayor of Cali, echoed the sentiment. “My responsibility is to secure concrete benefits for the people of Cali,” he said, highlighting meetings with international NGOs that fund violence prevention programs and U.S. institutions interested in economic development projects. He insisted that his visit was about pragmatic problem-solving, not national politics.
Behind closed doors, the mayors pressed for more direct U.S. engagement with municipalities, arguing that local governments are on the front lines of Colombia’s security challenges. “People don’t live in 10-year peace plans,” one participant reportedly said. “They live in fear today. And today they need support.”
In Washington, the mayors met with prominent figures from the Trump administration, including Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, chair of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs, as well as Colombian-American Senators Ruben Gallego and Bernie Moreno, who both recently met with President Petro in Colombia.
Cerramos una muy buena agenda en Washington a favor de Medellín y toda Colombia 🇨🇴.
No puedo dejar de expresar mi preocupación por el manejo que ha dado el gobierno Petro a las relaciones con Estados Unidos 🇺🇸, el aliado estratégico más importante para Colombia 🇨🇴.
Petro se puso… pic.twitter.com/82TI8u3ZZ0— Fico Gutiérrez (@FicoGutierrez) September 10, 2025
A broader struggle over power
The episode reflects deeper tensions between Petro’s administration and Colombia’s powerful city leaders. Since taking office, Petro has clashed repeatedly with mayors over urban security, social programs, and infrastructure projects. Critics say his government often sidelines local authorities, while allies argue that the president is pursuing a coherent national strategy that requires discipline from all levels of government.
The Washington trip, however, underscored the limits of that approach. By going abroad, the mayors demonstrated both their autonomy and their willingness to confront the president head-on — even at the risk of legal retaliation. For Petro, the episode reinforced his image as a leader increasingly isolated from local allies.
As the mayors returned to Colombia, the fallout was far from over. Legal complaints may still be filed, and the question of U.S. drug certification remains unresolved. What is clear is that the confrontation has deepened the divide between Colombia’s central government and its cities, raising urgent questions about who gets to speak for the nation on the world stage.“We didn’t go to Washington to pick a fight with the president,” Gutierrez insisted. “We went because our people cannot wait.”