The controversy over public debt in Colombia has intensified in recent weeks, amid a context of worrying fiscal tightness that is generating political tensions between the government and the opposition in an election year. The debate is not limited to technical figures, but has become a central axis of the confrontation over the country’s economic management and, in particular, over Colombia’s responsibility for the creation of this public debt.
While business groups, analysts, and opposition parties blame President Gustavo Petro for the rise in indebtedness, the executive branch says that most of the current obligations are a direct consequence of decisions made by the previous administration and that room for maneuver is becoming increasingly limited.
In this regard, Gustavo Petro insists that today’s debt is the result of the need, he says, to pay the debt generated by the government of President Ivan Duque (2018–2022).
Controversy over responsibility for public debt in Colombia
The starting point of the discussion is the volume of public debt that Colombia will have to face in the coming years, with particularly high maturities toward the end of the decade. Reports by oversight bodies have warned about the growing pressure that debt servicing will place on the national budget, especially starting in 2028 and 2029, when principal repayments and interest on bonds issued in recent years coincide.
From the economic sphere, indebtedness has continued to grow during the current term, even in a context of lower fiscal revenues. For these sectors, the issuance of new debt securities in January reinforces the perception that the government systematically resorts to borrowing to cover structural imbalances, which could compromise fiscal sustainability in the medium term.
The opposition has turned this argument into one of its main lines of attack. Political leaders claim that the executive has failed to contain spending or generate sufficient confidence to attract investment, forcing the state to finance itself at higher costs. In this narrative, the debt is not only high but increasingly expensive, in an international environment of high interest rates.
The government’s version: debt to pay debt
Gustavo Petro’s government flatly rejects this interpretation. From the Ministry of Finance and the presidency, officials insist that a large part of the recent issuances do not constitute new debt in the strict sense, but rather operations aimed at refinancing inherited obligations.
According to this view, current borrowing responds to the need to meet commitments undertaken during the previous administration, marked by a sharp increase in the fiscal deficit after the pandemic.
The executive branch emphasizes that a significant share of the budget is now allocated to the payment of interest and principal, which reduces the space for social and productive investment. In that context, turning to the debt market would be an inevitable tool to avoid defaults and preserve macroeconomic stability.
From the presidency, they argue that the increase in indebtedness cannot be analyzed in isolation, but rather in relation to the growth of spending in previous years and to the very structure of the debt, which concentrates maturities over relatively short terms. For the government, the problem is not so much having issued debt now, but the way the payment profile was configured in the past.
“The debt we incurred is not new debt; we only did it to pay old debt. We complied with the rules. For 2026, we will simply get through the weeks of lower liquidity in government and take advantage of a lower level of external interest rates,” Gustavo Petro wrote on his X social media account, attaching a news item about the confirmation by state oversight bodies that say that the government “complied with the law and the medium-term fiscal framework” with its debt issuance.
Llenaron estás redes diciendo que habíamos endeudado irresponsablemente el país.
Encuentran que la misma contraloría dice lo que ya dijimos. El endeudamiento que hicimos no es nueva deuda, solo lo hicimos para pagar la deuda vieja, cumplimos las normas.
Para el 2026… https://t.co/5YqPfstsmf
— Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) January 22, 2026
Shortly after writing this first comment, Petro responded to former President Alvaro Uribe (2002–2010), leader of the conservative Democratic Center party, who had questioned the current government’s debt issuance.
“Your government did not take care of ours and left us over-indebted; we are paying our debts, and now more revenue is needed, which you want to prevent the wealthiest from paying. There have already been two financing laws that you ordered sunk. You only like Carrasquilla-style taxes: on the poor,” Petro wrote, referring to Congress’s rejection of his fiscal reform proposals, designed to increase revenue, and especially to the debts that, he argues, were generated during the Duque administration, a member of Uribe’s same party.
Claro estimado Álvaro Uribe Velez, después e exagerar eróneamente los hechos de endeudamiento de mi gobierno, ahora se preocupa por la acumulación de deuda para el próximo gobierno
No sé preocupó su gobierno con el nuestro y nos dejó sobre endeudadados, pagamos nuestras… https://t.co/r2twZ565sQ
— Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) January 22, 2026
The clash with Congress and the tax reform
At the center of the controversy is the failure of two tax reforms promoted by the executive, especially the most recent one, rejected just weeks before the end of 2025. With this bill, the government sought to increase revenue and ease pressure on public finances. The rejection by Congress is criticized by the ruling coalition as a factor that worsens the fiscal situation and forces greater reliance on borrowing.
According to the Ministry of Finance, without stronger structural revenues, it is far more difficult to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt. The executive says that those who today criticize the level of indebtedness are, in many cases, the same political players who blocked measures to strengthen state revenues.
The opposition, for its part, responds that the tax reform was poorly designed and could have affected investment and growth, which in the long run would also have weakened public finances. This clash of narratives reflects a broader dispute over the economic model and the role of the state in redistribution and development.
Oversight bodies have tried to position themselves at a midpoint. Their reports do not place exclusive responsibility for the debt on a single government, but they do warn about the risks of maintaining a high debt trajectory in a context of low growth and high global uncertainty.
The warnings point to the need for a coherent, long-term fiscal strategy that combines spending discipline, stronger revenues, and more efficient debt management. They also note that, if the government does not adopt corrective measures, the burden of debt servicing could crowd out other state priorities in the coming years.