The United States’ interference in elections abroad is nothing new, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean. While not as obvious to the average civilian in the U.S. historically, the current administration under President Donald Trump has inadvertently exposed how interference often occurs, making it as public as can be. From endorsing candidates to threatening voters, the White House has very publicly meddled in many Latin American elections since Trump’s current term began.
The most recent was in Colombia, where the election interference was so obvious that the New York Times addressed the more glaring aspects, even if it did so after the election, reporting on the same things as many independent journalists did leading up to it. Before the Times report, and after independent journalists reported the interference, twenty members of the U.S. House of Representatives released a statement “condemning efforts by U.S. elected officials to interfere in Colombia’s presidential election.” That’s precisely how glaring it was.
“We see actions by U.S. President Donald Trump and other Members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people, an insult to their sovereignty and integrity, and wholly inconsistent with long-standing U.S. principles of non-interference in foreign elections,” the letter reads. “The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda.”
The election in Colombia was decided by less than one percentage point. Ivan Cepeda, widely viewed as President Gustavo Petro’s successor, inevitably conceded to Abelardo de la Espriella after the results were validated. However, President Petro continues to highlight U.S. interference, alongside interference from other entities. Just days ago, Petro accused Israeli cyber-intelligence company Black Core of participating in a disinformation campaign nearly identical to that which was exposed in the Hondurasgate files. The latter implicated several Latin American leaders, Republicans in Congress, and other prominent far-right actors in creating disinformation campaigns against leftist governments in the region.
Petro has continued to assert that de la Espriella is not the duly elected president-elect of Colombia and has moved to block the military inauguration his successor had planned on a military installation. In response, de la Espriella suspended the administrative transition process, accusing Petro of planning a coup to remain in power, creating uncertainty for the Colombian people who are facing an incoming president who is vocal about targeting his opponents.
While the progressive left in Colombia seems united and representative of at least half of the country, the tenuous support for de la Espriella will be contingent on what he does. He is poised to follow in the autocratic paths of Argentine President Javier Milei, Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa, El Salvadorean President Nayib Bukele, and Chilean President Jose Antonio Kast, all members of Trump’s Shield of the Americas. The group, of course, issued a joint statement against President Petro for speaking out about U.S. Interference in the election.
For de la Espriella, like his counterparts in the aforementioned countries, walking with far-right authoritarians will likely lead to popular uprisings against him.
Discover more from The Antagonist Magazine
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.