Trump vs Colombia: What Really Happened?
A deeper look at all the facts yields some surprises
As a fact enthusiast, I found myself asking the question: “what really happened?” in the recent flap between Colombia and the Trump administration. How did it happen that there were military deportee flights en route that got turned away? Trump supporters were saying there was an advance agreement for the military flights and Colombian Presdident Gustavo Petro reneged on the agreement, leading to the standoff. Their narrative is that Trump then righteously and properly brought down the US “big stick” on Petro, who then completely backed down and acceeded to all of Trump’s demands. Is this true? The available facts support a somewhat different depiction of what happened. I took a deeper look, and here is what I found.
1. This Didn’t Happen in a Vacuum - There were 475 deportation flights to Colombia from 2020-2024, and 124 in 2024 alone.
The deportation of Colombian nationals to their home country is not a new phenomenon. According to reports, Colombia accepted 475 deportation flights from the U.S. between 2020 and 2024. Of those, 124 occurred in 2024 alone. These flights followed an existing agreement that allowed deportations via commercial and chartered aircraft, coordinated in advance and conducted without major issues.
Trump’s sudden shift to military flights—with passengers shackled hands and feet and photographed for USG publicity purposes—was a departure from the established framework and existing agreement. While deportation flights were not new, the Trump administration’s decision to use military aircraft, shackled passengers, and military guards injected a new dynamic that immediately raised sovereignty and human rights concerns in Colombia. Moreover, prior to the Colombian President refusing to allow the flights in, there were vivid reports all over Latin American media in which Brazilians transported on a US military flight were telling vivid stories of horrid conditions on the flight - shacked for 24 hours, not allowed to use the bathroom, abused by aggressive guards. So the context was a) there was an existing agreement, b) 125 flights in the last year alone, c) prior military flights to Mexico and Brazil had resulted in protests and widespread outrage at conditions that were not in alignment with agreements or international norms.
2. Who Reneged: The U.S. or Colombia?
A key question in this dispute is whether Colombia’s refusal to accept the military flights constituted a breach of an agreement, as some on the right claim. I have looked deeply into this and thus far I can find no evidence that Colombia’s government approved the change from commercial/charter aircraft with passengers treated “respectfully” to military flights with passengers in shackles, not allowed to use the bathroom, were not even given water to drink on the long flight, and guarded by military guards. (If a reader/commenter can find evidence to the contrary , please present it in the comments.) Based on all of the available information, the switch to military aircraft with passengers in shackles appears to have been a unilateral decision by the Trump administration. I have been able to find no evidence of prior consultations with Colombian officials approving the key elements of military flights, shackles, publicity photos—all of which appear to be in contravention of the existing agreements between the two countries.
Based on the evidence, it seems that if anyone reneged on a prior agreement, it was the Trump administration who unilaterally switched from civilian to military carriers, plut the passengers in shackles, took and distributed publicity photos and videos,
3. The Buildup to the Event
The Colombia standoff did not occur in isolation. It followed diplomatic tensions with Mexico and Brazil over similar deportation flights. Mexico had refused a U.S. deportation flight due to concerns over the treatment of deportees, while Brazil lodged diplomatic protests over similar issues. These events signaled a broader regional pushback against U.S. deportation practices under the Trump administration.
Colombia’s objections fit into this context. President Petro’s government insisted on dignified treatment for deportees, citing prior issues in Brazil with deportees arriving in shackles and telling stories of not being able to use the bathroom, no water, etc. Petro’s rejection of the military flights, therefore, was not an isolated decision but part of a regional broader resistance to perceived U.S. abusive treatment of deportees — treatment that violated existing agreements.
I would note that even right wing outlet Newsmax reported at the time that Petro’s decision came “amid Latin American pushback” that had developed over the treatment of passengers on the military flightst to Brazil the previous day. Reported Newsmax: “Edgar Da Silva Moura, a 31-year-old computer technician who was among the 88 deported migrants, told AFP: "On the plane they didn't give us water, we were tied hands and feet, they wouldn't even let us go to the bathroom. …It was very hot, some people fainted."
Read more:Colombia to Block US Deportation Flights amid Growing LatAm Pushback | Newsmax.com
4. The Negotiated Settlement
The standoff ended with an agreement that allowed deportation flights to resume. The U.S. narrative portrays this as a complete capitulation by the Colmbians and thus a clear victory for Trump’s hardball tactics, with Colombia crumbling under pressure. However, Colombian reports suggest otherwise.
According to the New York Times, the agreement included significant concessions from the U.S., including a commitment to:
Avoid the use of shackles.
Prohibit the photographing of deportees.
Remove military guards from the process.
These concessions align with Colombia’s stated concerns and indicate that Petro achieved key guarantees for the dignified treatment of deportees. It was also agreed that Petro would send his own plane to the US to pick up and retrieve the deportees who were turned away, thus further assuring their dignified treatment. If accurate, this challenges the Trump administration’s narrative of unilateral victory.
5. Bottom Line: What’s the Real Story?
The available evidence points to two competing narratives:
Narrative A: (Supported by Available Facts): An existing framework allowed for over 400 flights, including 124 in 2024, without major issues. The Trump administration’s unilateral shift to military flights, without prior agreement, violated this framework and led to the standoff. This pattern—alongside similar disputes with Mexico and Brazil—suggests that the U.S. disrupted established norms, prompting regional resistance.
Narrative B (Promoted by the Right): President Petro initially agreed to the military flights but reneged, forcing Trump to take strong action. Under this narrative, Trump’s tactics compelled Colombia to back down in a full capitulation to Trump’s will.
Based on the available facts, Narrative A seems more credible. The lack of evidence for advance approval of military flights, coupled with Colombia’s documented concerns over deportee treatment, suggests that the U.S. disrupted a working agreement. While the Trump administration’s pressure tactics forced a resolution, the concessions granted to Colombia undermine the claim of a straightforward U.S. victory.
Final Thoughts
Trump got what he wanted, more or less — meaning he got agreement for the use of military aircraft. It appears he gave concessions regarding the humane treatment of deportees. At what cost? The level of resentment against “big stick” US posturing under Trump has ticked up a notch or two not only in Latin America, but around the world. On the other hand, seen from Trump’s perspective, the world has been put on notice that this is how he is going to operate and concerns about nicetieis like dignity and even human rights will not trouble him. Trump supporters in the US are wholly supporting him — although their support seems to be based at least in part upon misinformation about how the dispute happened, who reneged on prior agreements, and so on. Even if there is an effort to set the record straight that