����ֱ��

BOGOTA, Colombia: Colombia’s foreign minister has “renounced” her US visa to protest a decision by the US State Department to revoke the visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro, the Colombian government said Monday.
The decision by Foreign Minister Rosa Villavicencio comes as tensions between both nations escalate over issues that include drug policy, the war in Gaza and a US naval build up in neighboring Venezuela.
Colombia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry did not respond to questions about what kind of visa Villavicencio held, but said in a statement that it was not interested in “diplomatic visas that limit opinions” or curtail the nation’s “sovereignty.”
Later on Monday, Colombian Finance Minister Germán Ávila wrote in an X message that he would stop using his visa in “solidarity” with Petro, and because of the “aggression” he was subjected to by the United States. “To work for our people, we do not need visas” Ávila wrote.
The US State Department revoked Petro’s visa Friday after he participated in a protest in New York against the war in Gaza, in which Petro called for the creation of an international army to liberate the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Holding a megaphone and wearing a kaffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian scarf, Petro called on US soldiers to “disobey” President Donald Trump’s orders, adding that they should “not point their rifles against humanity.”
Hours after the protest, the State Department said on social media that it would cancel Petro’s visa “due to his reckless and incendiary actions.”
Petro was back in Colombia when the visa announcement was made, after having spent several days in New York attending the UN General Assembly. He wrote on X that he “didn’t care” about the punishment because he is also an Italian citizen, and could possibly travel to the USwithout a visa.
The revocation of Petro’s visa marks a new low in the leftist leader’s relations with the Trump administration, which earlier this month placed Colombia on a list of countries that it says are not fulfilling their international commitments to curb drug trafficking.
Geoff Ramsey, a Colombia analyst at the Atlantic Council, said the foreign minister’s decision to ban herself from visiting the United States places more obstacles in the relationship. He said it also reflects an effort by the Petro administration to distance itself from the US government, as Colombia heads into congressional and presidential elections next year.
“Petro is not even remotely interested in repairing the relationship with Washington,” Ramsey said. “He’s clearly betting that confrontation with Trump will score points for his coalition in the upcoming election cycle, and is willing to torch the bilateral relationship with the United States in the process.”
David Hart, an immigration attorney based in Miami, said it is very rare for non-immigrant visa holders — such as those with tourist or diplomatic visas — to renounce their travel permit.
He said that people who do not want to travel to the US can simply let their visas expire and then choose to not renew them.
“They are doing this for the media and to show solidarity” with Petro, Hart said of the foreign minister’s efforts to renounce her visa.
Wilfredo Allen, an immigration attorney from Miami, said that there is no formal procedure for quitting on a non-immigrant visa. He added that Colombia’s foreign affairs minister will likely have to send a letter to the US Embassy seeking the cancelation of her travel permit.
“If you don’t want to travel to the US you can simply choose not to come,” Allen said. “I had never seen someone take the time to renounce a non-immigrant visa.”

BOSTON: US President Donald Trump’s administration expanded its campaign against Harvard University on Monday as the Department of Health and Human Services said it would start a process that could lead to the school becoming ineligible for federal funding. HHS’ Office for Civil Rights said it had referred Harvard to the office within the department responsible for administrative suspension and debarment proceedings, a move that opened the door to the Ivy League school being barred from entering into contracts with all government agencies or receiving federal funding.
Its announcement came after the Office for Civil Rights in July referred the school to the US Department of Justice to address allegations it failed to address discrimination and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students on its campus.
Paula Stannard, the director of the Office for Civil Rights, said her office had notified Harvard of its right to a formal administrative hearing, where an administrative law judge would determine whether it violated the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It has 20 days to seek a hearing. “OCR’s referral of Harvard for formal administrative proceedings reflects OCR’s commitment to safeguard both taxpayer investments and the broader public interest,” Stannard said in a statement.
Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard did not respond to requests for comment. The university has said it aims to combat discrimination.
Trump’s administration has launched a campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at Harvard and other universities, which the president says are gripped by antisemitic and “radical left” ideologies. Harvard has sued over some of those actions, leading a judge to rule earlier this month that the administration had unlawfully terminated more than $2 billion in research grants awarded to the school.
US District Judge Allison Burroughs in her ruling said that the Trump administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”
The administration has been seeking a settlement with Harvard. Trump during a recent cabinet meeting said the university should pay “nothing less than $500 million” as it had “been very bad.” The administration says universities allowed displays of antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, say their criticism of Israel’s assault on Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories should not be characterized as antisemitism and their advocacy for Palestinian rights should not be equated with extremism.