The conversation between opposition presidential candidate Paloma Valencia and the president of Ecuador, Daniel Noboa, opened a new front of debate in Colombia’s electoral campaign. The contact, confirmed by the candidate herself, coincided with Quito’s announcement of reducing tariffs on Colombian products from 100% to 75%, in a context of accumulated tensions between the two countries.
The government of President Gustavo Petro reacted with questions about the scope and timing of that communication. From pro-government sectors, doubts were raised about the appropriateness of a candidate in the middle of a campaign engaging in dialogue with a foreign head of state amid a strained bilateral relationship.
The opposition, for its part, defended the exchange as a legitimate political initiative within the framework of the electoral debate, in what some analysts describe as interference by Quito in Colombia’s electoral campaign.
Controversy in Colombia over Valencia–Noboa talks and tariff cuts
“Today I spoke with President Noboa and expressed our willingness to cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime on the border. As a sign of goodwill toward Colombia, Ecuador’s government announced it is lowering tariffs from 100% to 75%,” Paloma Valencia wrote in a post on her social media.
The opposition candidate added that she hopes “that with the good relationship we are going to build starting August 7, tariffs will return to 0%,” in a clear attempt to link Noboa to her electoral campaign.
Hoy conversé con el presidente Noboa y le expresé nuestra voluntad de cooperar en la lucha contra el narcotráfico y el crimen organizado en la frontera. Como muestra de su buena voluntad con Colombia, el gobierno de Ecuador informó que baja los aranceles del 100% al 75%. Una… pic.twitter.com/s9ldOdrV9C
— Paloma Valencia L (@PalomaValenciaL) May 5, 2026
The relationship between Colombia and Ecuador has been going through a period of friction since early 2026, when the Ecuadorian government adopted trade measures that directly affected Colombian exports. Quito justified the imposition of tariffs as a way to protect its economy and respond to security problems along the shared border, pointing to the impact of drug trafficking and the presence of armed groups.
Colombia responded with similar measures and decisions in other areas, such as suspending energy exports to Ecuador. Trade between the two countries declined significantly, while the tone of official statements escalated in parallel with the hardening of policies adopted by each government.
The differences are not limited to trade. At the center of the disagreement are differing views on how to confront drug trafficking and insecurity in the border region. From Quito, officials have insisted that criminal networks operate more easily from Colombian territory, while Bogota has defended its actions and rejected those claims, emphasizing the shared complexity of the problem.
Over the course of these months, there have also been exchanges of statements between both presidents that have contributed to cooling the relationship. Public accusations and differences in the security approach have made bilateral coordination more difficult at a time when cooperation is key to border control.
It was in this context that the conversation between Valencia and Noboa took place. The Colombian right-wing candidate explained that the dialogue addressed security issues and the situation at the border, and raised the possibility of improving the bilateral relationship in the event of a change of government in Colombia.
Ecuador’s subsequent announcement of a tariff reduction was interpreted by Valencia as a sign of openness. However, Quito did not establish an explicit link between the economic decision and the conversation with the candidate. The temporal proximity between the two events was enough to bring the issue to the center of political debate.
For some sectors, Valencia’s actions show a willingness to rebuild channels of dialogue with Ecuador at a time of tension. Others believe that this type of contact should remain within the state’s institutional channels, especially when it involves relations with foreign governments.
Allegations of interference and political debate
From pro-government sectors, concerns were raised about possible external interference in Colombia’s electoral campaign. Criticism focused on the idea that contact with a head of state could be interpreted as a form of influence in the domestic political process, although no evidence of coordination in that regard has been presented.
It was also questioned whether a candidate can assume a role that, in formal terms, corresponds to the sitting executive. From this perspective, foreign policy should be conducted through institutional mechanisms and not through individual initiatives during a campaign.
The opposition rejected these criticisms and defended the conversation as a legitimate exercise of political dialogue. It argues that, in a context of deteriorating bilateral relations, it is necessary to open spaces for dialogue that allow tensions to be reduced and cooperation between the two countries to be restored.
What is clear is that, beyond the differences between Quito and Bogota or the political use—initiated by President Trump last year—of tariff threats, at the center of the debate lies the institutional loyalty of the opposition during an electoral campaign. At a time when foreign interference—also something initiated by Donald Trump—has become normalized, pressure exerted from outside a country becomes a valid element for debate.
All in all, Noboa sent Colombia a clear message of political affinity, after five months of rhetorical and trade confrontation with the Petro government. And the enduring debate over how to confront drug trafficking—the source of many of these countries’ problems—not only fails to bring different governments into agreement, but, inevitably, has become part of the narrative of Colombia’s electoral campaign.