Ecuador decided to maintain the 100% tariff on Colombian products despite the ultimatum issued by the Andean Community (CAN), deepening one of the biggest recent trade and diplomatic crises between the two countries.
The government of Daniel Noboa formally responded to the regional body with a series of legal appeals aimed at blocking the order that required the measures to be dismantled before May 21, a dispute that could now drag on for more than two years.
The decision represents a new episode in the escalation between Bogota and Quito, marked since the beginning of 2026 by mutual accusations over border security, drug trafficking, and illegal mining.
While Colombia insists that Ecuador is violating Andean trade rules, the Ecuadorian administration argues that the restrictions are necessary to finance its border security strategy and protect its economy.
Ecuador responded that it is maintaining the 100% tariffs on Colombia
Hours before the deadline imposed by the CAN General Secretariat expired, the Ecuadorian government confirmed that it will not remove the tariffs and that it will resort to legal mechanisms in an attempt to reverse the resolutions issued by the regional body. Quito filed two motions for reconsideration before the General Secretariat and two annulment actions before the Andean Community Court of Justice.
The administration of Daniel Noboa believes that the CAN failed to take into account Ecuador’s security situation and the reasons that led to the imposition of the so-called “security tax” on Colombian products. According to Ecuador’s official position, Colombia is not cooperating sufficiently in the fight against criminal organizations operating along the shared border, especially networks linked to drug trafficking and illegal mining.
Although Ecuador confirmed that it will reduce the 100% levy to 75% starting June 1, it made clear that it will maintain the trade restrictions while the regional litigation moves forward. For Colombia, however, the issue is not only the tariff percentage, but the fact that any additional tax contradicts the Andean Community’s free trade program.
The CAN General Secretariat had previously determined that Ecuador’s measures violated the Cartagena Agreement and ordered both countries to dismantle reciprocal trade barriers. However, Quito’s legal strategy could delay the effective implementation of that decision for months or even years.
— Comunidad Andina (@ComunidadAndina) May 21, 2026
A trade war that continues to escalate
The trade confrontation began on February 1, when Ecuador imposed 30% tariffs on Colombian products citing national security concerns. Colombia responded weeks later with similar measures, triggering a chain of retaliations that progressively intensified.
The conflict reached a new critical point on May 1, when Quito raised tariffs to 100%. Bogota reacted by imposing tariffs ranging from 35% to 75% on 191 Ecuadorian products, expanding the economic impact on both markets.
Political tensions also escalated with statements by President Daniel Noboa, who months ago went so far as to claim that Colombia had become Ecuador’s “worst trading partner.” The Ecuadorian president repeatedly defended the “security tax” as a necessary tool to confront violence and strengthen state control in border regions.
The government of Gustavo Petro, on the other hand, argues that Ecuador is using security arguments to justify protectionist measures incompatible with regional commitments. The Petro administration insists that the dispute must be resolved within the framework of Andean integration rules and warns about the risk of undermining decades of trade cooperation between the two countries.
Business leaders and border regions, the hardest hit
While the governments continue their diplomatic standoff, the economic effects are already being strongly felt along the Colombia-Ecuador border. Business leaders in both countries warn that bilateral trade is going through one of its most delicate moments in decades, with exports paralyzed, markets lost, and growing legal uncertainty.
Sectors such as food products, plastics, sugar, rice, and manufacturing have been particularly hard hit by the new tariffs. In Colombian regions such as Nariño, historically dependent on trade with Ecuador, business leaders say that hundreds of companies have reduced operations or temporarily abandoned the Ecuadorian market.
The situation is also causing concern in Ecuador. Some exporters have begun seeking alternative routes or commercial triangulation with other Andean countries to avoid the impact of the measures. However, business associations acknowledge that the deterioration of bilateral trust could continue even if the tariffs are eventually lifted.
International trade experts believe the case could become a decisive test for the Andean Community, a bloc that has historically promoted the free movement of goods among Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. The CAN’s ability to enforce its decisions is now under scrutiny, especially in a conflict that combines trade, security, and regional political tensions.
The most likely scenario, according to analysts and sources close to the process, is that the dispute will continue through Andean Community legal channels for an extended period. The motions for reconsideration and annulment actions filed by Ecuador could prolong the litigation for more than two years before a final decision is reached.