The US has “decertified” Colombia as an ally in the fight against drugs, adding it to a list of countries including Afghanistan, Myanmar and Venezuela. Behind the decision lie surging coca cultivation and a desire to signal that US support for Colombia is no longer unconditional. It represents a rupture in one of Washington’s longest-standing security partnerships in the region.

Under US law, the president must annually assess whether major drug-producing or transit countries are “fully cooperating” with American counternarcotics efforts. Those judged to be “failing demonstrably” risk losing access to most US foreign assistance and face US opposition in multilateral lending bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

Colombia, which has long been regarded as Washington’s anchor in Latin America, has not been decertified since 1997. That move followed allegations that the then-Colombian president, Ernesto Samper Pizano, had accepted campaign contributions from drug traffickers. Washington’s frustration now focuses on a different concern: the transformation of Colombia’s drug policy under President Gustavo Petro.

When Petro took office in 2022 as Colombia’s first leftist leader, he pledged to end what he called the “failed war on drugs”. His government has shifted away from militarised crackdowns and the forced eradication of coca plantations toward negotiated transitions, voluntary crop substitution and rural development.

Petro argues that the drug trade is rooted in poverty, inequality and state absence, and that decades of repression have only entrenched cycles of violence. He has resisted resuming aerial spraying of coca fields with glyphosate herbicide, which Colombian courts suspended in 2015 over environmental and health concerns.

Read more: Why Colombia sees legalising drugs as the way forward. Here's what's being proposed

US officials view Petro’s policy as dangerously permissive. From Washington’s perspective, eradication and interdiction remain the clearest indicators of cooperation. Both have declined as cocaine output has surged.

According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), around 253,000 hectares of Colombia were under coca cultivation in 2023. This figure was close to a historic high. Colombia now produces more than six times as much cocaine as it did in 1993, the year the Medellín cartel leader Pablo Escobar was killed.

The UNODC says Colombia is now responsible for 67% of global cocaine production. And research also shows coca cultivation expanding into protected areas, including national parks, where enforcement is difficult and environmental risks are acute.

Washington’s concerns go beyond eradication metrics. US officials have quietly criticised Petro’s government for slowing or conditioning the extradition of drug traffickers. Handing drug traffickers to the US to stand trial is a practice that has long been central to bilateral cooperation.

The US has also grown wary of Petro’s foreign policy. He has overseen warmer ties with Venezuela and more engagement with China, all while displaying scepticism toward US-led security initiatives. These developments have raised doubts about Colombia’s long-term alignment with Washington’s strategy.

Why decertification matters

Decertification is a blunt instrument that is useful for punishment. But it is hard to calibrate without collateral damage across other areas of cooperation such as security, environmental protection and migration.

Legally, decertification allows the US to suspend most foreign assistance, block or oppose international loans and limit trade preferences. But in practice, Washington often tempers these consequences by issuing “national interest” waivers that allow aid to continue.

The Trump administration has signalled that such a waiver will apply to Colombia. This will preserve some assistance while making other funds conditional on policy shifts. However, the symbolic impact of decertification is still significant.

Colombia’s reputation as Washington’s anchor in the region has been dented and private investors may see the move as a warning sign of heightened risk in the Colombian security and economic environment. It also injects mistrust into a diplomatic relationship that has long underpinned US security strategies in Latin America.

The decision places Petro in a delicate position. It hands ammunition to his political opponents, who accuse him of being soft on crime and presiding over deteriorating security. It may also pressure Petro to resume aerial spraying. Civil society groups warn that fumigation could spark protests, harm health and damage ecosystems.

At the same time, capitulating to US demands risks undermining Petro’s flagship agenda of peace-building and rural development. Many coca-growing communities support his shift away from militarisation; reversing course could alienate them and erode trust in the state. Petro must therefore walk a fine line: show enough cooperation to unlock US support without betraying his domestic mandate.

Although framed as a response to drug policy failures, the timing and tone of the decertification have fuelled speculation that Washington is seeking leverage on broader issues. Some analysts argue the US may use it to extract concessions on extradition policy, Colombia’s stance toward Venezuela and China, and governance and human rights safeguards in drug enforcement.

Ultimately, Washington’s decision reflects both acute frustration and calculated pressure. It shows how far the approaches of the two governments toward the drug war have diverged, and how the US is now willing to use cooperation as a means to advance broader strategic aims.

For Petro, the challenge is to prove that his developmental model can contain his country’s cocaine economy without reverting to policies that many Colombians see as destructive. For Washington, the risk is that coercion may not bring Bogotá back onside, but instead push it further away.

How both sides respond could reshape US-Colombia relations for years to come.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Adriana Marin, Coventry University

Read more:

Adriana Marin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.