In late October 2025, an unusual demand jumped from Latin American diplomacy straight into America’s cannabis debate: Colombian President Gustavo Petro publicly urged U.S. President Donald Trump to legalize cannabis—specifically, to allow exports of regulated Colombian cannabis to the United States. Petro framed the move as a step toward replacing prohibition with international regulation that could sap profits from criminal cartels and lift rural economies. Trump’s response, however, came in the language of sanctions, tariffs, and sharp rhetoric—not policy convergence.
Below is a concise timeline, the policy context, and what to watch next, with primary sources throughout.
Timeline: From War of Words to a Cannabis Challenge
- October 19–20, 2025 — Rhetoric & Aid Cuts. Trump escalates his criticism of Petro, calling him an “illegal drug leader,” saying he “does nothing to stop” production, and announcing cuts to U.S. aid and threats of tariffs; Colombia recalls its ambassador.
- October 27, 2025 — Petro’s Public Ask. Amid the diplomatic rift (and U.S. maritime strikes targeting alleged drug boats), Petro publicly urges Trump to “legalize the export of cannabis as any good.” Reporting emphasizes his long-standing view that international regulation—not interdiction alone—curbs violence and illicit markets.
- October 28–30, 2025 — Coverage & Sanctions. U.S. and international outlets amplify Petro’s ask; some frame it as a bid to substitute licit cannabis trade for cocaine profits. The same week, the Trump administration imposes sanctions on Petro and close associates, deepening the standoff; Treasury and press accounts cite narcotics concerns and alleged cartel enablement.
- Context earlier in 2025 — Petro’s Domestic Push. Petro had already pressed Colombia’s Congress to legalize cannabis as part of a broader re-set of drug policy focused on rural development and public health, arguing prohibition fuels violence.
Petro’s Case: Trade Over Prohibition
What Petro argued. The Colombian president’s core claim is that replacing prohibition with regulated international trade in cannabis (and a wider rethink of drug policy) would reduce criminal rents, redirect farmer livelihoods, and align with global shifts in cannabis laws. He presented legalization of exports as both economic strategy (agriculture, jobs, tax) and security policy (eroding illicit networks). Multiple outlets quote or paraphrase his direct appeal to Trump on legalizing cannabis exports to the U.S.
Why now? The appeal landed as Washington labeled Colombia “uncooperative” on narcotics control and escalated maritime operations. Petro countered that decades of militarized drug war strategies have failed, pointing to record coca cultivation and arguing for a transition away from purely repressive approaches.
Trump’s Response So Far
No policy shift on cannabis. There has been no indication that the White House is considering federal cannabis legalization or an import channel in response to Petro’s push. Instead, Trump’s public stance has been punitive: threats of tariffs, aid cuts, and sanctions tied to alleged failures on drug control, plus stark personal criticism of Petro. READ MORE: 29 News
Framing the dispute. Administration messaging emphasizes record coca cultivation, claims that Bogotá has not met counternarcotics commitments, and national-security justifications for interdiction—not a pivot toward regulated cannabis trade. (See State Department drug-producing/transit designations and administration briefings this fall.) MORE ABOUT: State Department
Could U.S. Law Even Allow “Cannabis Imports” Now?
Short answer: no, not under current federal law. Cannabis remains Schedule I at the federal level, and interstate or international commerce in marijuana is illegal. Even if the U.S. were to federally legalize, importing cannabis from Colombia would require treaty navigation (e.g., Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs obligations), new FDA/USDA/Customs rules, phytosanitary protocols, and a congressional framework. Petro’s proposal, while strategically provocative, presumes sweeping U.S. reform first.
Domestically, federal movement has been incremental—Banking reform efforts, a proposed HHS/DEA rescheduling review (separate from outright legalization), and a patchwork of state-legal programs with no international import mechanism for adult use. Petro’s “export to U.S.” gambit therefore functions more as geopolitical pressure and agenda-setting than a near-term bilateral trade pathway.
Why Petro’s Ask Resonates Anyway
- Global Momentum. Germany, Malta, and others are experimenting with legalization models; Canada and Uruguay allow national markets. The idea of regulated international cannabis trade—eventually—is now part of mainstream policy conversations, even if timelines are long. Petro is trying to place Colombia at the front of that queue. MORE ABOUT: Business of Cannabis
- Rural Transition. Colombia’s development plans long envisioned crop-substitution and rural investment; licit cannabis could be one plank—especially for non-psychoactive hemp and medical cannabis, where export channels already exist under strict regimes (outside U.S. adult-use). Petro’s appeal links security to agro-industrial strategy.
- A U.S. Debate Already in Motion. With over half of U.S. states permitting adult-use cannabis and most others allowing medical programs, Petro is addressing a political audience in the U.S. that increasingly sees prohibition as outdated—even if federal policy lags.
What Each Side Is Signaling
- Colombia (Petro). “The drug war failed; regulate to reduce harm.” Legal export to the U.S. is both a symbolic challenge to prohibition and a concrete development vision. Petro’s communications explicitly frame cannabis exports as ordinary trade—“as any good.” MORE ABOUT: Marijuana Moment
- United States (Trump). “Crack down and coerce.” The administration is prioritizing enforcement optics (strikes at sea, designations, sanctions) and trade pressure, while casting Petro as permissive on drugs. That stance crowds out any talk of cannabis import liberalization in the short term.
The Diplomatic Stakes
This is not only about cannabis; it’s about who sets the agenda for hemispheric drug policy. Petro’s public challenge attempts to flip the script: instead of Washington grading Bogotá on eradication metrics, Bogotá is inviting Washington to modernize policy in ways that could relieve pressure on Colombia’s countryside. By answering with sanctions and tariffs, the U.S. keeps the conversation anchored in sticks, not policy coordination.
The broader relationship is already strained—visa threats, tariff feints, and a spasm of mutual accusations. That makes any technical dialogue (e.g., medical-only pilot imports, joint research, or a bilateral working group on cannabis standards) politically unlikely in the short run. READ MORE: ElHuffPost
What To Watch Next
- U.S. Federal Posture (2026 Session). Keep an eye on Congress for any comprehensive cannabis bill that even contemplates foreign supply chains—so far, none of the serious proposals do. More plausible is continued movement on banking and administrative rescheduling, which would still not open doors to imports.
- Colombia’s Domestic Track. Petro and allies will likely double down on domestic legalization and export positioning to third countries (medical markets, hemp). Progress in Bogotá—licensing, quality standards, farmer programs—could bolster the long-term case that Colombia is a credible exporter when the global rules permit. WEBSITE: Anadolu Ajansı
- International Forums. Expect Petro’s team to internationalize the argument—CND in Vienna, UNGA side events, or regional blocs—pushing an eventual treaty-compliant path for cannabis trade. Coverage has already framed his ask to Trump as a call for an “international regulatory framework.” READ MORE: Sechat
- Sanctions & Trade Levers. If the U.S. escalates sanctions or tariffs, Bogotá could respond via diplomatic fora or trade diversification. The longer the standoff, the less oxygen there is for cooperative cannabis policy pilots. READ MORE: AP News
In Simple Terms
Did President Trump agree to legalize cannabis (or imports) after Petro’s push? No. The official U.S. reaction emphasized sanctions and pressure, not policy reform. Did Petro’s ask matter? Yes—because it placed regulated cannabis trade on the bilateral agenda in a high-profile way, underscoring that the endgame for drug-policy reform in the Americas won’t be decided by eradication stats alone.
In practical terms, U.S. law currently blocks any cannabis import channel, and there’s no sign of a near-term federal pivot. But Petro’s gambit illustrates a future many policymakers already see coming: a world where cannabis is legal, regulated, and traded—and where countries like Colombia hope to thrive not as battlefields of prohibition, but as partners in a licit, rules-based market.