The defeat of anti-imperialist symbolism in the face of US pragmatism
The recent exchange of statements and measures between Colombian President Gustavo Petro and US President Donald Trump exemplifies yet another chapter in the complex dynamics of contemporary hybrid warfare. This war, characterized by a combination of political, economic and narrative pressures, has as its battleground not only diplomatic institutions, but also public opinion and the international stage. Recent events show how the weight of US hegemony still prevails, even in the face of symbolic challenges.
Petro vs. Trump: A Buffoonish and Ineffective Posture
The conflict began when Gustavo Petro, president of Colombia, denied permission for a US military plane to land on Colombian soil carrying deportees in handcuffs. The move was seen as an attempt to directly confront US migration policies. In response, the US government, under the leadership of Donald Trump, imposed sanctions against Colombia, justifying the decision as a way of putting pressure on the country in the face of political and migratory differences. In the midst of the clash, Petro declared forcefully: “I resisted torture and I resist you”, in an attempt to evoke his past as a former guerrilla and his history of facing adversity. However, the statement was widely interpreted as a buffoonish gesture, more aimed at political laceration to please his base than at presenting pragmatic solutions to the impasse.
This stance proved to be a buffoonish and poorly calculated act, considering the erosion of his popularity in Colombia. Petro tried to reinforce an image of independence and sovereignty by adopting a confrontational tone against the United States, aligning himself with an anti-imperialist discourse that historically mobilizes sectors of the Latin American left. However, the gesture was quickly unmasked by the practical consequences of the sanctions, which exposed the limits of his rhetoric. With a political base already worn down by internal challenges, the move ended up reinforcing criticism of its inability to deal pragmatically with issues of great international relevance.
Trump’s setback and victory
Days after the initial clash, the narrative changed dramatically. Under pressure from sanctions, the Colombian government gave in to Washington’s demands and adjusted its policy of deporting migrants. In response, Trump suspended the sanctions, celebrating the decision as a victory for his pressure strategy. This outcome not only exposes the limits of Petro’s resistance, but also reaffirms the bargaining power that the United States holds over developing nations.
The Colombian retreat was widely criticized by Petro’s opponents, who saw the decision as a contradiction to the initial discourse of sovereignty and resistance. While Petro sought to project an image of autonomous leadership, the final decision ended up reinforcing the idea that, in practice, Colombia is still deeply dependent on pragmatic relations with the United States. With a falling approval rating in the country, Petro’s failures on the international stage only added to the internal perception of inefficiency and loss of political direction.
The Lula government’s reaction and the hypocritical comparison

In Brazil, the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva also faced a dilemma related to the migration issue during the same sanctions imposed by Trump. The situation gained prominence after images of Brazilians deported from the United States being chained up, a practice that generated strong indignation in Brazilian public opinion. Lula condemned the action, but his stance was criticized due to his government’s silence on similar episodes that occurred during Joe Biden’s administration.
Data shows that under the Biden administration, the number of deportations of Brazilians was already significantly high. Since 2021, thousands of Brazilians have been deported from the United States, but the most recent data indicates that, during the current Lula administration, the number of deportees has continued to be significant, with several reports of precarious conditions and degrading treatment. This shows that the action is not exclusive to Trump, but a continuation of strict migration policies adopted by the Democratic government. Furthermore, considering the short time between the imposition of sanctions and the deportations, it is unlikely that the cases started exclusively under Trump. This suggests that many cases were already underway during the Biden administration, but were accelerated and used politically by Trump.
The debate also extends to future hypotheses. If Kamala Harris, Biden’s vice-president, were in office, the scenario would hardly be different. The same deportees would probably face similar conditions, given the continuation of tough immigration policies by the Democrats. This finding undermines the narrative that only Republican governments adopt harsh measures against migrants.
Hybrid Warfare and Its Meanings
The dispute between Petro and Trump is an emblematic example of how hybrid warfare operates on multiple levels. On the one hand, we have economic pressure, with sanctions acting as a tool to force political changes in governments considered challenging by the United States. On the other, the narrative battle, in which symbolic statements like Petro’s try to galvanize domestic and international support, but often come up against the limits imposed by unequal power relations.
Trump’s victory in this episode is not limited to the suspension of sanctions. It also reinforces the perception that the US apparatus of influence – which combines sanctions, strategic alliances and a narrative of moral authority – is still a virtually uncontested force in the Western hemisphere. For Petro, the episode represents a significant defeat, undermining his attempt to consolidate a discourse of autonomy in a global context where relations of dependency remain deeply rooted.
The battle between Gustavo Petro and Donald Trump is a reflection of the tensions that define contemporary global politics. Although Petro sought to challenge the weight of US hegemony with a discourse of resistance, the limitations imposed by structural factors led him to retreat, which strengthened Trump’s narrative. This episode highlights not only unequal power dynamics, but also the challenges faced by leaders trying to navigate between the symbolism of resistance and the pragmatic realities of an international system dominated by consolidated powers.