U.S. Congresswoman Accuses Maduro and Petro of Siding with Adversaries

Washington, D.C. — In a forceful address on Capitol Hill Monday, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, chair of the House Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Colombian President Gustavo Petro of aligning their governments with regimes and organizations opposed to U.S. interests. Her comments have drawn renewed attention to the evolving dynamics of Latin American alliances and the increasing geopolitical competition for influence across the region.

---

Salazar’s Allegations and the Congressional Context

Speaking during a session dedicated to transnational security and the drug trade, Representative Salazar charged that both Maduro and Petro “choose to side with those who undermine freedom,” referencing their governments’ ties to Iran, Russia, China, and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. The Miami-based lawmaker, herself of Cuban descent and a vocal advocate for democracy in Latin America, argued that these relationships jeopardize regional stability and compromise joint efforts against organized crime.

Salazar’s statement came as members of Congress reviewed new data from the State Department and intelligence agencies showing rising activity by non-state actors across Latin America. Citing credible reports, she argued that Venezuela’s military cooperation with Russia and Iran and Colombia’s increasingly independent foreign policy under Petro reflect a “dangerous shift away from hemispheric solidarity.”

In her remarks, Salazar linked these developments to broader efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to reaffirm U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere. “With President Trump, we’re proving the Monroe Doctrine is alive and strong, securing decades of peace for our children,” she said, emphasizing what she described as a “renewed commitment to keeping foreign adversaries out of the Americas.”

---

Historical Roots of U.S.–Latin American Tensions

Salazar’s comments revived a long-standing debate over the meaning and application of the Monroe Doctrine, the nearly 200-year-old U.S. foreign policy principle meant to deter external interference in the Americas. Originally articulated in 1823 by President James Monroe, the doctrine warned European powers against colonizing or meddling in the Western Hemisphere.

Over time, the policy became a cornerstone of U.S. engagement in Latin America, invoked to justify both diplomatic initiatives and, at times, interventionist actions. Critics argue that the doctrine has been used inconsistently, sometimes supporting democratic movements and other times serving as a pretext for strategic or economic influence. Nevertheless, its revival in modern U.S. policy rhetoric signals a renewed focus on preserving American leadership amid intensifying global competition.

Historically, both Venezuela and Colombia have experienced fluctuating relations with Washington. Colombia was long considered one of the United States’ most dependable allies in Latin America, especially during its decades-long fight against drug cartels and leftist insurgent groups. Venezuela, by contrast, became increasingly estranged from Washington following Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in 1999, culminating in diplomatic isolation under Nicolás Maduro’s rule.

---

Alignments with Adversarial Powers

In recent years, both Caracas and Bogotá have pursued deepened ties with Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran—moves that Washington views with growing concern. China remains the largest foreign lender and investor in Venezuela, providing billions in loans backed by oil exports. Russian defense cooperation with the Venezuelan military, including arms sales and personnel exchanges, has further entrenched Moscow’s presence in the region.

Meanwhile, Colombian President Gustavo Petro has sought to reposition Colombia’s foreign policy, calling for new diplomatic ties with leftist governments across Latin America and expressing openness to closer relations with China and Russia. His administration restored relations with Venezuela in 2022 after years of estrangement, following a period in which Colombia had recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate president.

Salazar contended that such ties have emboldened authoritarian governments and undermined regional efforts to combat transnational crime. She specifically warned of Hezbollah’s reported presence in parts of Latin America—a claim that U.S. intelligence officials have made intermittently since the early 2000s. According to Salazar, these networks use the region’s porous borders and entrenched corruption to move illicit funds and drugs, posing a direct threat to U.S. national security.

---

The Drug Trade and Regional Security

The congressional hearing in which Salazar spoke focused on the Western Hemisphere’s deepening drug crisis, particularly the flow of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine through Central and South America. U.S. officials estimate that trafficking routes through the Caribbean and Pacific corridors have become more complex and lucrative, often involving alliances between criminal organizations and corrupt state actors.

Salazar accused both Venezuela and elements within Colombia’s leftist movements of “shielding” traffickers under the guise of anti-imperialist or revolutionary rhetoric. She called for stricter sanctions, fortified intelligence sharing, and expanded cooperation with regional democracies such as Ecuador, Panama, and Costa Rica. According to her, maintaining U.S. leadership in these initiatives ensures the stability of hemispheric trade routes and protects American economic and security interests.

Analysts note that while Venezuela’s state apparatus has faced accusations of facilitating narcotics trafficking, Colombia’s government under Petro insists it is pursuing peace talks with remaining rebel groups as part of a broader security strategy. Some experts, however, caution that Petro’s approach risks diluting collaboration with U.S. anti-drug agencies.

---

Diplomatic Reactions from Caracas and Bogotá

Following Salazar’s comments, neither the Venezuelan nor Colombian governments issued immediate formal responses. In previous instances, both leaders have dismissed U.S. criticism as politically motivated. Maduro often portrays Washington’s stance as a continuation of “imperialist hostility,” while Petro has defended his nation’s foreign policy as “sovereign and multipolar.”

Regional observers, however, suggest that the rhetoric reflects deeper tensions over the future of hemispheric diplomacy. Petro’s ambitious plan to unite Latin American nations in a “continental bloc of peace” has faced skepticism from U.S. lawmakers, who worry it might create space for Chinese or Russian mediation in matters historically influenced by Washington.

---

Economic and Strategic Stakes

Beneath the political rhetoric lies a stark economic reality: both China and Russia have significantly expanded their financial and strategic presence throughout Latin America. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative includes infrastructure projects across 21 Latin American countries, while Russian state energy firms maintain exploration agreements with Venezuela’s PDVSA.

The U.S. remains the region’s largest trading partner, but its share of investment has declined over the past decade. Analysts warn that diminished U.S. engagement could weaken its ability to counteract alliances between Latin American states and Washington’s strategic adversaries. Salazar’s remarks thus underscore a bipartisan concern about preserving economic and security leverage in the hemisphere.

The congresswoman’s speech also arrives as the U.S. seeks to manage security challenges closer to home. With record migration flows from Venezuela and continued instability in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s governance and economic health have become central to Washington’s domestic agenda. Salazar framed the debate as an existential test of hemispheric unity, urging a “coalition of democracies” against what she called “a coordinated axis of authoritarianism.”

---

Regional Comparisons and International Implications

While Venezuela and Colombia dominate currents, similar realignments are occurring across Latin America. Governments in Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba maintain warm relations with Beijing and Moscow, often echoing grievances against U.S. sanctions. In contrast, nations such as Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay continue to favor closer trade and security cooperation with Washington.

The position of Mexico remains particularly pivotal. As Latin America’s second-largest economy and the U.S.’s top trading partner in the region, its government balances a pragmatic stance—cooperating on security and migration issues—while expanding economic ties with China. Analysts believe Mexico’s choices in the coming years will heavily shape the broader regional alignment.

Internationally, Washington’s partners in Europe and Asia are watching developments closely. A more fragmented Western Hemisphere could complicate multilateral responses to transnational threats, from cybercrime to energy disruptions. For the U.S., maintaining credibility and coherent policy in Latin America is essential to ensuring global stability.

---

Outlook and Policy Trajectory

Representative Salazar concluded her remarks by urging continued vigilance and bipartisan support for stronger U.S. leadership in the Americas. While her speech resonated with Republican lawmakers emphasizing deterrence against foreign adversaries, some Democratic members advocated for a more nuanced approach combining diplomacy with economic engagement.

As the State Department reviews sanctions and funding priorities for Latin America, experts expect the next phase of U.S. strategy to focus on countering Chinese and Russian influence through technology investment, energy development, and democratic governance initiatives. Both Caracas and Bogotá remain central to that equation, representing opposing tests of how far U.S. policy can adapt to shifting ideologies without forfeiting regional trust.

For now, Salazar’s condemnation of Maduro and Petro serves as a clear signal: Washington’s appetite for reasserting its influence in the hemisphere is growing once again. Whether this renewed posture strengthens cooperation or escalates confrontation will depend on the willingness of all parties to balance sovereignty with shared responsibility for regional stability.