The president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, signed a decree that eliminates the special service bonus previously received by members of Congress and that will take effect with the new legislative term, starting on July 20.
The elimination of this salary component, which ranged between 12 million and 17 million pesos per month (approximately US$3,200 and US$4,600, respectively), represents a significant reduction in the income of senators and members of the House of Representatives and has sparked strong political and media controversy in the country.
For the government, this is an action framed by criteria of equity, austerity, and rationalization of public spending in a context where stark economic inequalities persist, and the fiscal deficit is rising.
However, for many lawmakers, the decision not only disrupts a long-standing salary practice but also constitutes a direct response by the executive branch to a Congress that has thwarted key government initiatives. This has fueled the debate over the balance of powers in Colombia and is interpreted, they say, as retaliation for Congress’ votes against the government’s proposals.
The fact is that the reduction of lawmakers’ high salaries is a debate that dates back many years, since in a country where the minimum monthly wage is around US$540, legislators’ pay currently exceeds US$14,000.
Colombia’s Petro cuts Congress members’ salaries by decree
The decree eliminating the special service bonus repealed the 2013 regulation that established this benefit for lawmakers, a benefit implemented by the government of President Juan Manuel Santos shortly after the start of peace talks with the now-defunct FARC guerrilla group.
That bonus, originally designed to offset expenses associated with settling in Bogota, had become a near-standard component of congressional pay, pushing monthly income above 52 million pesos (approximately US$14,000). With its elimination, official projections estimate that the gross income of future lawmakers will be around 36 million pesos (approximately US$9,700), a cut that some sectors have interpreted as a gesture of fiscal responsibility and others as a political blow.
The government has argued that lawmakers’ compensation was “disproportionate” compared with the reality of average incomes in Colombia and that maintaining it hindered the state’s efforts to close social gaps and meet fiscal sustainability targets. The presidency also noted that the Constitutional Court has established that bonuses granted to members of Congress are not immutable obligations for the executive branch, providing legal grounds for the decision.
The Colombian president’s arguments have further fueled the controversy, including among those who justify the measure as a small act of “revenge” by Petro for Congress’s rejection of his legislative initiatives. “They keep approving tax reforms against the poor and sink those that impose taxes on the rich. That’s why I think it’s very fair to reduce lawmakers’ salaries,” the president said in a post on his X social media account.
Se la pasan aprobando reformas tributarias contra los pobres y hunden las que le ponen impuestos a los ricos.
Por eso creo que es muy justo reducir el salario a los congresistas. https://t.co/ee90O3Gspz
— Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) January 20, 2026
In a more technical argument, the decree in question explains that the decision is mainly due to the “rationality of public spending” in a context of growing fiscal deficit. “The evolution of the constitutional, fiscal, and administrative framework of the state makes it necessary to review and adjust the components of the remuneration system to ensure its consistency with the principles of fiscal sustainability, rationality of public spending, transparency, and equity,” explains the decree, signed by the Minister of Finance, German Avila.
Controversy and accusations of retaliation
From the opposition and some legislative leaders, the measure was met with harsh criticism. The president of the Senate stated that Petro had received that bonus for nearly 20 years without raising any objection, and therefore described the elimination of the benefit as a “political maneuver” or punishment by the executive branch against a legislature that has not shown alignment with the government’s agenda.
These voices say that the decision responds less to a principle of austerity than to retaliation for the repeated rejection of key bills promoted by the president, particularly tax reforms that faced difficulties in Congress.
Petro himself, through his social media accounts, defended the elimination of the bonus by denouncing that many members of Congress “spend their time approving tax reforms against the poor,” while rejecting taxation aimed at the wealthiest. This direct and critical message was interpreted by political analysts as an indication that the measure goes beyond what is merely technical and enters the realm of open political confrontation between the executive and the legislature.
Not all support for the decree comes from the opposition. Even within progressive sectors and allies of the government, there was backing for the initiative. Senators such as Angelica Lozano from Green Alliance party welcomed the measure, arguing that it represents a step toward greater equality between the incomes of political representatives and those of ordinary citizens.
Lozano recalled that similar initiatives to reduce benefits had been introduced on multiple occasions in Congress without securing the necessary votes through traditional legislative processes, which explains, from her perspective, the need to resort to a presidential decree to move forward with this objective.
This highlights an internal division not only between parties but also within the progressive caucuses themselves, where positions of loyalty to the president are mixed with more critical readings of the use of executive decrees for matters of internal congressional policy. The debate has centered on whether the administrative route was a legitimate instrument to adjust compensation or whether, on the contrary, it is a measure with a clear tinge of political revenge.
A presidential decree after failed congressional attempts
The decision to adjust lawmakers’ salaries by decree opens a broader discussion about the balance of power in Colombia and the constitutional tools available to a president when faced with a Congress that can act as a brake on his agenda. For critics, the measure highlights the tensions between the search for social legitimacy — where cuts to privileges perceived as excessive often enjoy popular support — and the need to respect institutional mechanisms of representation and checks and balances.
In addition, the elimination of this benefit comes at a time when the government has also promoted policies to raise the minimum wage, creating a political narrative centered on redistribution and social justice, while also prompting criticism about the effectiveness of measures that, for some sectors, may seem more symbolic than structural.
What all analysts agree on is that, in the midst of the run-up to the March legislative elections and in a polarized political climate, Petro’s decision marks a distinct profile for the ruling party in the relationship between the executive and Congress, leaving a legacy that will likely continue to fuel debate over the legitimacy of privileges and the way political power is exercised in Colombia and, above all, over the privileges — seen by many as excessive — of Colombia’s political class.