The Constitutional Court’s decision against President Gustavo Petro has once again reignited a debate that has followed the Colombian leader throughout different stages of his political career, regarding the tone he uses toward women who question his administration or represent critical voices in the public sphere.
What initially appeared to be another episode in the increasingly tense relationship between the government and sectors of the press quickly evolved into something much broader after the court concluded that the president’s language crossed constitutional boundaries and reinforced harmful gender stereotypes against women journalists.
The high court ordered Petro to issue a public apology after referring to several women journalists as “mob dolls” and “journalists of power,” expressions the court considered stigmatizing and constitutive of symbolic gender-based violence. According to the ruling, those remarks did not merely amount to political criticism or rhetorical confrontation.
Instead, the court argued that the language carried a deeper implication by portraying women journalists as figures lacking independence and acting under the influence of hidden political or economic interests.
The ruling, published in 2025, concluded that the president’s statements violated fundamental rights such as equality, freedom of expression, and the right of women journalists to carry out their work free from gender-based violence.
For the Court, the language used by the president reinforced historical stereotypes portraying women as manipulable figures subordinated to male or political interests. In doing so, the ruling argued, the comments not only affected the journalists directly involved but also contributed to a broader climate that can intensify online harassment and hostility toward women working in the media.
But beyond the judicial order itself, the ruling revives a much larger and increasingly uncomfortable discussion surrounding the way the president has referred to women from official platforms on different occasions.
Over the past years, Petro has repeatedly sparked controversy for remarks involving women’s bodies, sexuality, or autonomy, often triggering criticism from feminist sectors, legal experts, political analysts, and press freedom organizations that argue the president’s rhetoric frequently crosses the line between political debate and symbolic violence.
A ruling that warns about the weight of presidential rhetoric
The Constitutional Court emphasized that words spoken by the head of state carry a completely different weight than those of an ordinary citizen. The symbolic power of the presidency amplifies every message, particularly in an era dominated by social media and political polarization, where presidential statements can rapidly shape public discourse and trigger massive online reactions.
The high court stressed that when comments come from the highest office in the country, their impact extends far beyond personal opinion.
In its decision, the court argued that expressions such as “mob dolls” do not merely constitute political criticism. According to the ruling, the phrase conveys the idea that women journalists lack autonomy and act on behalf of third parties, perpetuating gender stereotypes historically used to discredit women in positions of influence and visibility.
The tribunal warned that language of this kind reinforces narratives that have historically undermined women’s credibility in public life by portraying them as instruments manipulated by more powerful players rather than independent professionals.
The ruling also warned about the risk that such statements could encourage online attacks and harassment campaigns against female journalists, especially in a country where practicing journalism remains a high-risk profession.
Colombia has long faced serious concerns related to threats against reporters, and women journalists frequently experience an additional layer of gender-based hostility that includes sexist insults, intimidation, and coordinated online abuse.
For that reason, the court concluded that the president has an enhanced duty of caution when referring publicly to women journalists and other constitutionally protected groups. The tribunal also stressed that women journalists enjoy reinforced constitutional protections due to the high levels of violence and digital harassment they face in Colombia.
Press freedom organizations have repeatedly warned that attacks against female reporters often include sexist abuse, comments about physical appearance, and attempts to undermine their professional independence.
That is precisely one of the ruling’s most sensitive conclusions, as the court determined that the president’s language not only affected the journalists directly involved but also reinforced discriminatory narratives that have historically limited women’s participation in public life.
In the court’s view, presidential rhetoric cannot be separated from the broader social context in which women journalists continue to face disproportionate levels of hostility simply for carrying out their work.
Not the first time Petro has faced criticism over comments about women
Although the recent ruling by the Constitutional Court centers around the expressions “mob dolls” and “journalists of power,” this is not the first time Gustavo Petro has sparked national controversy over comments involving women and their bodies. Several previous incidents have generated intense backlash and fueled growing concerns about the recurring tone the president adopts when discussing women in public settings.
One of the most criticized episodes took place during a televised cabinet meeting in mid-April, when the president devoted a significant portion of his remarks to reflections about sexuality, the female body, and references that quickly generated discomfort even among progressive sectors.
What began as a broader discussion touching on society, economics, and politics gradually shifted into remarks that many viewers considered deeply inappropriate for an official institutional setting.
For nearly three hours, Petro discussed multiple political and social issues, but one moment that drew the strongest reactions came when he referenced singer Shakira and the phrase “women don’t cry anymore, women cash in,” popularized globally through her collaboration with Bizarrap.
The phrase, widely interpreted as a message of resilience and female empowerment after personal hardship, became the starting point for one of the president’s most controversial reflections. The president used the phrase to launch into a reflection about markets, the body, and sexuality.
“Shakira really got to me when she said ‘women cash in,’ and I thought: The body is not for sale, because it belongs to life, not to the market,” the president said, adding that turning the body into a commodity ultimately creates forms of slavery. Critics immediately argued that Petro had reframed a phrase associated with economic independence and empowerment into a moral discussion centered on judging women’s bodies and sexuality.
The remarks quickly ignited debate across social media and political circles. Critics of the government argued that the president’s interpretation displaced the original context of empowerment and instead introduced a paternalistic tone about women’s bodies and autonomy. Others questioned why discussions involving women’s sexuality repeatedly emerge in Petro’s speeches from official government spaces.
However, the controversy did not end there. During that same cabinet meeting, Petro once again made explicit references to the clitoris and female sexuality in remarks many considered inappropriate and out of place for an official government setting. “The clitoris tied to the brain and the penis tied to the brain — sexuality plays with the brain,” the president said while defending the idea that sexual organs should not be treated as taboo subjects.
Although Petro framed his comments as reflections about freedom, the body, and human sensitivity, criticism quickly intensified. Various sectors argued that the issue was not merely the use of anatomical terms, but the president’s recurring tendency to bring discussions about female sexuality into political and institutional settings where many believe the tone becomes invasive, uncomfortable, and unnecessary.
The controversy deepened because it was not the first time Petro had made similar remarks. Months earlier, during another televised cabinet meeting in September 2025, the president had already sparked backlash after saying that “a free woman does whatever she wants with her clitoris and her brain.” The statement immediately triggered widespread criticism and reignited debates over whether the president’s rhetoric toward women had crossed into openly sexist territory.
Those remarks eventually led to legal action. Criminal lawyer Tatiana Echavarria filed a constitutional complaint arguing that the president’s rhetoric reproduced sexist and violent expressions capable of negatively affecting even the democratic education of minors.
The complaint argued that such language from the head of state normalized degrading discourse about women from the highest institutional level in the country.
The case escalated to the point that Bogota’s 66th Circuit Court ordered the president to publicly retract his statements. Months later, Petro ended up reading a formal correction before another official Cabinet broadcast.
“In compliance with judicial decisions that invite reflection and dialogue, I retract the expression I used when speaking about women’s happiness,” the president stated at the time.
Precisely because of episodes such as these, the recent ruling by the Constitutional Court carries even broader political significance. For critics, the remarks against women journalists do not appear to be isolated incidents, but rather part of a broader rhetorical pattern in which the female body, women’s sexuality, or women’s autonomy repeatedly become the subject of presidential commentary that later ignites national controversy.
The broader debate over misogyny and symbolic violence in politics
The case has once again brought attention to an increasingly relevant issue across Latin America on symbolic and verbal violence against women in political and media spaces. Feminist organizations and press freedom advocates have repeatedly warned that women journalists face attacks that differ significantly from those directed at their male counterparts, often involving misogynistic insults, sexualized harassment, or attempts to undermine professional credibility through gender stereotypes.
In that context, the ruling by the Constitutional Court takes on a broader dimension because it recognizes that words spoken from positions of power can reinforce exactly those patterns of violence. The court noted that Colombia continues to face high levels of online harassment and digital aggression against women journalists and insisted that public officials — especially the president — must exercise extreme caution in their public statements.
The tribunal also made clear that presidential freedom of expression is not unlimited. While Petro has the right to criticize media outlets, journalists, or political sectors, his remarks cannot become vehicles for discrimination or gender-based violence. That distinction has now become central to the broader national conversation sparked by the ruling.
The debate also touches on a sensitive point for the current administration, which has repeatedly defended agendas related to equality, inclusion, and women’s rights. Precisely for that reason, many critics argue that there is a contradiction between those institutional messages and certain statements made by the president himself.
Political analysts argue that the issue is not necessarily the discussion of sexuality or gender itself, but rather the way and context in which those references are made from the presidential stage.
When such remarks come from the head of state, they argue, the impact ceases to be merely anecdotal and instead acquires institutional significance capable of shaping public attitudes and legitimizing hostility toward women in public life.
What the president will now be required to do
The ruling establishes concrete obligations for the president. In addition to issuing a public apology in a setting similar to the original statement, Petro must also include a clarifying note in both the video and official transcript of the remarks in question. According to the court, the previous partial correction offered by the president did not adequately repair the harm caused.
The tribunal stated that the president’s response must be “symmetrical and proportional” to the damage generated by the remarks. The objective, according to the ruling, is not to censor political debate, but to prevent official platforms from legitimizing rhetoric that could undermine the dignity and safety of women journalists.
The decision also overturned a previous ruling by the Council of State and responded to a constitutional action filed by lawyer German Calderon España, the organization El Veinte (a Colombian nonprofit organization focused on defending and promoting digital rights, freedom of expression, access to information, and online civic participation), the Foundation for Press Freedom, and several journalists.
The women journalists involved later stated that the ruling makes clear that even the president faces heightened constitutional limits when his speech affects historically vulnerable groups.
The ruling by the Constitutional Court will likely become an important precedent in the relationship between political power, freedom of expression, and symbolic violence in Colombia. While criticism of the press is a natural part of any democracy, the tribunal made clear that even the president faces limits when his words may reinforce gender stereotypes or increase risks against women journalists.
But the decision also reopens a deeper conversation about the tone Gustavo Petro has used at different moments when referring to women from official platforms. For critics, the remarks against journalists and the recurring comments about the female body do not appear to be isolated episodes, but rather part of a broader rhetorical pattern that repeatedly generates discomfort, backlash, and debates over misogyny, symbolic violence, and the use of political power.
In a country where women journalists continue to face threats, online harassment, and targeted attacks, the court’s message appears forceful: presidential rhetoric matters.
Every word spoken from the presidential palace carries political, institutional, and social consequences. And that is precisely why the order requiring Petro to apologize publicly goes far beyond a simple correction.
The ruling once again places at the center of Colombia’s national debate an increasingly uncomfortable question: To what extent has the president’s rhetoric contributed to normalizing forms of stigmatization and public degradation against women in Colombian public life?