WASHINGTON — An offhand comment by President Trump threatening to attack Colombia, a major U.S. ally, has roiled its government and confounded its public, anxious and unsure whether to take the U.S. leader seriously.

Trump’s remarks came during questions from reporters Tuesday over a prospective U.S. military campaign against drug trafficking networks in Latin America. The mission could expand beyond Venezuela, the prime target of nascent U.S. war plans, the president said.

“I hear Colombia, the country of Colombia, is making cocaine,” Trump said at a Cabinet meeting. “Then they sell us their cocaine. We appreciate that very much, but yeah, anybody that’s doing that and selling it into our country is subject to attack. Not just Venezuela.”

Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first leftist president, who has repeatedly clashed with the White House, likened Trump’s bellicose rhetoric to a declaration of war.

“Do not threaten our sovereignty, because you will awaken the Jaguar,” Petro wrote on X. “Attacking our sovereignty is declaring war; do not damage two centuries of diplomatic relations.”

In an official communique, the Colombian Foreign Ministry called on “brotherly” nations in Latin America and the Caribbean to reject “any attempt at foreign intervention that seeks to undermine sovereignty.”

Trump’s latest threat comes amid deteriorating relations with Bogota, which celebrated 200 years of diplomatic relations with Washington just three years ago and, marking the occasion, was designated a major non-NATO ally by President Biden, a status celebrated across party lines on Capitol Hill.

Petro’s election that year began a shift, with U.S. assistance reduced in 2024 over Petro’s drug policies and, at the beginning of this year, paused completely by the Trump administration. The Treasury Department labeled Petro an “illegal drug dealer” in October and imposed sanctions against him and his family.

Evan Ellis, who served in Trump’s first term planning State Department policy on Latin America, the Caribbean, and international narcotics, told The Times that strikes against Colombia are unlikely — but not as far-fetched as the prospect of a U.S. attack on Mexico, whose economic clout is greater, and whose government has fared better in diplomacy with Washington.

“There’s a strong hope that it’s just bluster — that, given Colombia has a sovereign government that the U.S. recognizes and has long worked with, it’s understood it would be catastrophic for the relationship,” Ellis said. “There’s a combination of concern and confusion, but there is a hope that this is just part of the president’s style.”

Trump’s secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and deputy secretary of State, Christopher Landau, both have deep knowledge of the region and are said to be advocating against military strikes against U.S. allies. But Petro’s insults against Trump, calling him “ignorant,” “profoundly rude” and “against humanity,” have rankled a U.S. president accustomed to obsequious praise.

“In a certain way, despite the close military relationship and everything at stake, you clearly have a president who’s been imprudent at best,” Ellis said of Petro. “Making shrill and defiant statements against Trump are about the clearest way to get on his bad side.”

United Nations figures show that Colombian cultivation of coca — the raw ingredient in cocaine — has reached record levels in recent years, fueled by rising demand for cocaine not only in the United States, but also Europe and elsewhere.

Whereas U.S.-Venezuelan relations have been strained for more than a quarter of a century, Colombia has long been viewed as a steadfast ally, receiving billions in aid from Washington destined for antidrug campaigns. The alliance has endured despite large-scale internal strife in Colombia and the nation’s status as the world’s primary producer and exporter of cocaine.

The specter of a U.S. military attack seemed unfathomable to many Colombians processing the news Wednesday.

“A few years ago, we would never have imagined that Colombia could be threatened with attacks on its territory,” said Sebastián Bitar, an analyst at the University of the Andes. “We trusted in the solid relationship between the United States and Colombia.”

Guillermo Cochez, a Panamanian politician who served as his nation’s ambassador to the Organization of American States, believes that Trump’s threat against Colombia amounts to bluster, noting close ties between U.S. Southern Command and the Colombian military. “The most Americanized military in Latin America is the Colombian military,” Cochez told The Times.

“The United States will not do anything in Colombia, because they have to solve Venezuela first. That will be happening in the next phase,” Cochez said.

“Petro has so many problems inside Colombia that is known by the American government,” Cochez added. “It’s a distraction for Donald Trump. He’s trying to use his fight with Trump to try to get some respect in Colombia.”

The armed forces of the two nations have collaborated for years, conducting joint training exercises and counter-narcotics operations. A unilateral strike could upend that relationship, wrote the Colombian daily El Heraldo in an editorial, warning a U.S. attack could spark an “unprecedented regional reaction, with internally displaced [civilians], retaliations by various actors, border crises and new diasporas.”

Throughout Latin America, Trump’s saber-rattling has alarmed many — especially on the left — reflecting the region’s historic wariness of U.S. intervention.

Alejandro Rusconi, a left-wing Argentine lawyer and analyst, called Trump’s statements “yet another demonstration of the belligerent escalation being carried out by the U.S. government against the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.”

But many local analysts warned that Colombia needed to heed Trump’s threat, taking whatever steps are necessary to avoid a direct confrontation.

“Its not the time to provoke the United States,” economist Mauricio Reina told Red Más Noticias, a Colombian outlet.

“With Donald Trump,” he added, “one has to fly low, avoiding the radar.”

Kentucky Derby winner Sovereignty will not run in the Preakness Stakes, ending any chance at a Triple Crown for a seventh consecutive year.

“We received a call today from trainer Bill Mott that Sovereignty will not be competing in the Preakness,” 1/ST Racing executive VP Mike Rogers said Tuesday. “We extend our congratulations to the connections of Sovereignty and respect their decision.”

Mott told Preakness officials the plan will be to enter Sovereignty in the Belmont Stakes on June 7. Mott on Sunday morning foreshadowed skipping the Preakness in the name of long-term interests.

“We want to do what’s best for the horse,” Mott told reporters at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky. “Of course, you always think about a Triple Crown, and that’s not something we’re not going to think about.”

This is the fourth time since Justify won all three races in 2018 that the Preakness will go on without a true shot at a Triple Crown. The short, two-week turnaround from the Kentucky Derby to the Preakness and changes in modern racing have sparked debate around the sport about spacing out the races.

TORONTO — Canada’s incoming Prime Minister Mark Carney said Wednesday he’s ready to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump if he respects Canadian sovereignty and is open to talk about a common approach to trade.

Trump has declared a trade war on his northern neighbor and continues to call for Canada to become the 51st state, a position that has infuriated Canadians. Trump has threatened economic coercion in his annexation threats and suggested Tuesday the border is a fictional line.

“I am ready to sit down with President Trump at the appropriate time under a position where there is respect for Canadian sovereignty and we are working for a common approach, a much more comprehensive approach for trade,” Carney said.

Carney, who will be sworn in Friday with his new Cabinet, spoke to reporters at a steel factory in Hamilton, Ontario after Trump officially increased tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports to 25%. Canada is the largest foreign supplier of steel and aluminum to the U.S.

Carney said workers in both countries will be better off when “the greatest economic and security partnership in the world is renewed, relaunched. That is possible.”

He added he respects Trump’s concerns for American workers and about fentanyl.

“Today is a difficult day for Canada and the industry because of these unjustified tariffs that have been put on,” Carney said.

Canada responded with its own countermeasures. It plans to impose retaliatory tariffs of 29.8 billion Canadian dollars ($20.7 billion) starting Thursday in response to the U.S. taxes on the metals. Canada’s new tariffs would be on steel and aluminum products, as well as U.S. goods including computers, sports equipment and water heaters worth CA$14.2 billion ($9.9 billion).

“We don’t want to do this because we believe in open borders and free and fair trade but we are doing this in response,” Carney said.

Canada’s new tariffs are in addition to its 25% counter tariffs on CA$30 billion ($20.8 billion) of imports from the U.S. that were put in place on March 4 in response to other Trump import taxes that he partially delayed by a month.

Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly said Wednesday this is now the second round of unjustified tariffs leveled against Canada.

“The excuse for the first round was exaggerated claims about our border. We addressed all the concerns raised by the U.S.,” Joly said.

“The latest excuse is national security despite the fact that Canada’s steel and aluminum adds to America’s security. All the while there is a threat of further and broader tariffs on April 2 still looming.”

Joly said the excuses for those tariffs shift every day.

“The only constant in this unjustifiable trade war seems to be President Trump’s talk of annexing our country through economic coercion. Yesterday he called our a border a fictional line and repeated his disrespectful 51st state rhetoric,” Joly said.

The U.S. president has given a variety of explanations for his antagonism of Canada. He has said that his separate 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada, some of which have been suspended for a month, are about fentanyl smuggling and objections to Canada putting high taxes on dairy imports that penalize U.S. farmers. He also continued to call for Canada to become part of the United States.

“Mr. Carney is a serious person, a serious man, and he’ll engage only if there are serious talks,” Joly said.

President-elect Donald Trump has made clear his intent to supercharge his “America First” approach to foreign policy in his second term — and Mexico looks set to be at the tip of the spear.

While many of Trump’s predecessors have also followed a “realist” strategy — that is, one in which relative power is at the forefront of international relations and diplomatic success is viewed through how it benefits one’s own nation — the incoming president has displayed an apparent unwillingness to consider the pain that his plans would inflict on targeted countries or the responses this will engender.

Trump’s proposed policies threaten Mexico in three key ways: First, his goal of deporting millions of migrants would put tremendous pressure on Mexico’s economy and society as the country tried to absorb the influx. This would be exacerbated by his second threat, a sharp increase in tariffs, which could devastate the critical export sector of Mexico’s economy. And third, Trump has floated the idea of using U.S. military power to confront narcotraffickers within Mexico — which would directly impinge on Mexico’s sovereignty and could generate more violence on both sides of the border.

But Mexico has several options to push back on Trump by imposing high costs on U.S. interests.

Indeed, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has already signaled how she may counter Trump’s policies. The most obvious tools are ending cooperation on drugs and immigration and imposing tariffs of her own. She could also revoke some of the decades-old tax and labor privileges that have benefited U.S. businesses operating within Mexico. And finally, she could play the “China card” — that is, in the face of worsening U.S.-Mexico ties, Mexico could turn to Washington’s biggest economic rival at a time when Beijing is seeking to assert more influence across Latin America.

Sheinbaum has said she wants to avoid a trade war, but Trump’s threats have led her nonetheless to talk about how a trade war would begin. This trade war, plus other costs Sheinbaum could impose on U.S. investors, would also likely foment a coalition of opposition within the U.S.

If Trump abrogates trade deals and imposes tariffs, he might convince investors to spend their next dollars in the U.S. But if Mexico imposes tariffs, business taxes or investment restrictions, what would happen to investors’ farms and factories already in Mexico?

Past experience suggests that any disruption to supply chains or U.S. export markets would awaken strong business opposition, as analysts and business groups have already recognized.

Trump is not immune to pressure from U.S. businesses. During his first administration, companies successfully opposed Trump’s attempt to close the border, arguing that slowing the flow of immigrants also meant slowing trucks full of goods.

On the issue of border and immigration, while Trump has issued threats, Sheinbaum has stressed the importance of cooperation.

Currently the Mexican government expends significant resources to patrol its own southern border, not to mention dealing with the many potential migrants who gather in its northern cities.

Mexico could demand more support from the U.S. in exchange for this work plus the costs associated with welcoming back the estimated 4 million Mexicans who are currently in the U.S. without proper documentation.

The deportation of undocumented immigrants that Trump has repeatedly promised would require other types of cooperation, such as processing border crossings, and Mexico could slow-walk this process. Mexico has already signaled that it will withhold processing of non-Mexicans.

The two countries have a history of collaboration in addressing the illegal drugs trade — but here too there have also been tensions. For example, toward the end of Trump’s first term, a Mexican general was arrested in the U.S. on drug charges. After a diplomatic uproar, he was returned to Mexico and released.

In late November, Sheinbaum noted that she and Trump had discussed security cooperation “within the framework of our sovereignty.” But Trump’s campaign rhetoric seemed less concerned with Mexico’s sovereignty, floating the idea of sending troops to the border or even deploying them within Mexico to counter narcotraffickers. That would clearly enrage Mexico, with consequences that would extend far beyond a willingness to cooperate on the issues of drug trafficking.

One country that stands to benefit should U.S.-Mexican relations deteriorate is China — an issue that Mexico could exploit.

China is now the first or second trading partner with nearly every country in Latin America, including Mexico. The value of U.S.-Mexico trade is over $100 billion a year, but the growth of Chinese imports into Mexico has been limited somewhat by rules-of-origin provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement and its Trump-era successor, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

A U.S.-Mexico trade war could weaken or end any incentive to keep Chinese goods out. Further, if the doors to the United States are narrowed through tariffs and hostile rhetoric, China’s car parts and financial services would clearly become even more attractive to Mexican businesses. A U.S.-Mexican trade war, in short, would augment Beijing’s access to a market on the U.S. border.

In sum, if Trump goes through with his threats, the result will be costs to consumers and businesses, plus a new opportunity for China. This is likely to foment a coalition of industries, investors and consumers and foreign policy experts concerned with China — many parts of which supported Trump’s campaign.

Scott Morgenstern is a professor of political science and past director of the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. This article was produced in partnership with the Conversation.

Following the full-scale invasion by Russia in February 2022, Ukraine has suffered tremendously. Tens of thousands have died, and a quarter of the country’s prewar population has been displaced. Homes, neighborhoods and entire cities have been reduced to rubble.

Some question the wisdom of Ukraine continuing to fight back instead of seeking to negotiate with Russia. President Vladimir Putin himself claims he “does not reject the idea of peace talks,” while prominent figures have called for negotiations, possibly involving a settlement to cede occupied territories in exchange for peace.

Calls for Ukraine to have such talks rely on an assumption that Russia would negotiate in good faith. But, looking to history as a guide, this assumption is naïve. Russia’s actions over the last 31 years reveal a troubling pattern of frequent lying and breaking international agreements. Negotiations with Russia are therefore futile.

Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine in both the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997. In an agreement partitioning the Black Sea Fleet after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia agreed to pay Ukraine to lease a naval base in Sevastopol.

Seventeen years later, it illegally annexed that base and the rest of Crimea. In the Budapest Memorandum, Russia provided security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal. Now, a nuclear power has launched a full-scale invasion of the state whose security it was supposed to protect.

Russia’s other neighbors have had similar experiences. Russia armed and fought on the side of separatists in both Georgia and Moldova.

In 1992, Russia signed two agreements ensuring the territorial integrity of Georgia and promising to avoid military involvement in its separatist conflicts. Yet in 2008, Russia invaded, falsely claiming that Georgia was committing genocide against South Ossetians to justify the war. In a cease-fire agreement brokered by the French president, Russia agreed to withdraw its troops from Georgia — but it never did. Fifteen years later, Russian troops continue to occupy 20% of Georgian territory.

Similarly, some 1,500 Russian soldiers are stationed in the Moldovan region of Transnistria, more than 20 years after Russia made two agreements to withdraw them.

Russia has an abysmal track record of keeping agreements made with the countries it has invaded, including ones brokered by outside mediators and security organizations.

Perhaps Russia would be more likely to respect a treaty brokered by a powerful country such as the United States? Unfortunately, history provides no evidence for this assumption, either. Russia has broken every nuclear treaty it has signed with the U.S.

Under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty signed at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia agreed to ban missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,000 kilometers. Within the last decade, Russia secretly tested a cruise missile with a range of 2,500 kilometers and now deploys it in four battalions.

This year, Russia suspended its participation in the New START treaty. Moscow had already been refusing to restart mandatory inspections of its arsenal after a pause early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Even in its dealings with the U.S., Russia readily violates treaties and abandons them when convenient.

Russia has also shown a pattern of disregard for states throughout Europe and the Americas. Its interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, when Russia hacked into the computer servers of the Democratic National Convention and targeted voter systems in all 50 states, was broadly publicized in the media. Additionally, the Kremlin has illegally meddled in the elections of countries including Belarus, France, Georgia, Germany, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, Poland and Ukraine.

Russia has also conducted less subtle attempts at interference in foreign politics. The Kremlin attempted a coup in Montenegro a year before the country ratified its accession to NATO. Western intelligence concluded that a special unit of the Russian GRU planned to attack the Montenegrin parliament and assassinate the prime minister on the day of the parliamentary elections. This year, there have been allegations that Russia planned a similar coup in Moldova.

Russia’s readiness to ignore the sovereignty of other nations is also exemplified by its audacious assassinations of political opponents in broad daylight across Europe. In 2006, former British double agent Alexander Litvinenko died from radiation sickness in London after drinking a cup of tea poisoned with polonium-210. British investigators concluded the assassination, carried out by Russian FSB agents, was probably ordered by Putin.

In 2018, Russian intelligence poisoned another former spy, Sergei Skripal, in a park in Salisbury. He survived the attempt, but a British woman died after accidentally coming into contact with the poison. The following year, a Chechen insurgent fighter named Zelimkhan Khangoshvili was shot and killed by an FSB agent in the middle of a park in Berlin.

What is notable about these violent acts and attempts at election interference is that besides trampling on other states’ sovereignty, Russia consistently lies. According to Putin: “We didn’t meddle, we aren’t meddling, and we will not meddle in any elections.”

The Kremlin also mocked British investigations into the poisonings of Litvinenko and Skripal as “totally absurd.” Russia’s modus operandi has always been “deny everything and admit nothing.”

Those who argue that it is time for Ukraine to negotiate with Russia are overlooking reality. Russia has broken every peace treaty it ever signed with Ukraine, and many more with other states it has inflicted violence upon.

The Kremlin operates without regard for its neighbors, the United States, European countries, or any moral or legal boundaries. Putin has no reservations about interfering in democratic elections, plotting coups or murdering people even on NATO soil.

Negotiations hinge on having a modicum of trust in the other party’s commitment to honor agreements, but Russia has demolished any grounds for trust.

Anastassia Fedyk is an assistant professor of finance at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. Tatyana Deryugina is an associate professor of finance at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Emilia Marshall, a research fellow with Economists for Ukraine, contributed to this article.