The Council of State of Colombia provisionally suspended the effects of the minimum wage increase decreed by the National Government for 2026, whose hike exceeded 23%. The decision by the high court, disclosed in recent hours by the Council of State, temporarily leaves this important measure on hold and requires the executive branch to issue, within a maximum of eight days, a new decree that legally supports the setting of the current statutory basic wage for this year.
The news, announced early this morning by the local outlet Blu Radio, triggered a wave of reactions among unions, business associations, and political sectors, and highlights the tensions surrounding one of the pillars of the country’s wage policy, as well as the controversial decision by the Petro administration to transform the minimum wage into a “living minimum wage,” with an increase far above CPI (inflation rate), which stood at 5.1% in December 2025.
The court itself explained that the measure is provisional and precautionary in nature, while it studies in detail the lawsuits filed against Decree 1469 of 2025, the regulation that set the minimum wage for 2026 at 1,750,905 pesos (approximately US$480), with a transportation subsidy that together amounted to around 2,000,000 pesos (approximately US$550), equivalent to a 23.7% increase compared to the previous year.
These complaints sought not only the annulment of the decree, but also the suspension of its effects while a final decision is made regarding its legality.
With the decision of the Council of State, that increase is temporarily put on hold and cannot be applied until the government fulfills its obligation to issue a new regulation that, according to the court, complies with the requirements of reasoning and legal justification demanded by the Constitution and the current legal framework.
Council of State suspends minimum wage increase in Colombia, temporarily
The provisional suspension adopted by the Council of State is not a mere procedural formality. It has direct effects on the wage structure of some 2.5 million workers and on the country’s overall economic policy.
The current legal monthly minimum wage is the mandatory benchmark for employers and employees, and its determination — in technical and legal terms — requires solid reasoning explaining the criteria applied to calculate the increase.
According to the court, the challenged decree lacked essential elements of justification: the government allegedly did not sufficiently set out the impact of variables such as inflation, productivity, the share of wages in national income, and other technical factors required by law to agree on an adjustment of this nature.
The obligation to issue a new decree within eight days is a clear signal that the state seeks to restore legal certainty in labor matters as soon as possible and to avoid a prolonged regulatory vacuum. This requirement, in addition to being urgent, poses a significant challenge for the government, which must now justify with greater technical and legal rigor its wage policy project for this year.
By refusing to uphold the effects of the original decree, the high court brings to the forefront the tension between political decisions with major social impact and strict compliance with the rules governing administrative action.
Consejo de Estado suspende provisionalmente el Decreto del salario mínimo legal para 2026 y ordena la expedición de un nuevo decreto en 8 días.
➡️Ver más: //www.consejodeestado.gov.co/noticias/index.php pic.twitter.com/H7Q9oeKnM3
— Consejo de Estado (@consejodeestado) February 13, 2026
Lawsuits and legal arguments behind the suspension
The suspension of the effects of the decree on the minimum wage stems from the anticipated lawsuits filed by business sectors. In this regard, multiple lawsuits were submitted before the Council of State, at least 16 according to media reports and judicial sources, challenging Decree 1469 of 2025 on various technical and legal grounds.
The plaintiffs, including business organizations such as Fenalco and other sectors of the business community, argued that the government applied criteria not expressly contemplated in the law to set this year’s base wage.
One of the most frequently repeated criticisms was the use of the concept of a “vital minimum wage,” which, although it has been the subject of academic and political debate, is not codified as a mandatory criterion for calculating the minimum wage under Colombian labor legislation.
Fenalco, for example, argued in its lawsuit that applying the living wage criterion ignored the traditional variables established by law — such as inflation, productivity, and the share of wages in national income — and, in doing so, incurred legal deficiencies that could have negative effects on the economy and legal stability.
From this perspective, the request for a provisional suspension sought to protect the country’s general interest against a rule that, according to these sectors, could generate significant distortions in the labor market and in public finances.
The decision by the Council of State places the government in a complex situation. The executive must now draft and issue a new decree in less than a week, with legal reasoning that is robust and capable of withstanding the court’s scrutiny.
This new text, in addition to respecting the technical criteria required by law, must avoid leaving legal gaps that could give rise to new challenges.
The pressure is high, as millions of workers are awaiting certainty regarding the value of their base salary for the year, and uncertainty could have considerable economic and social effects.