Colombians return to the polls Sunday for a presidential runoff between a far-right firebrand who calls himself “the Tiger” and a left-wing senator from the ruling party, in a contest that reflects sharply different visions for the country and could redefine Bogotá’s relationship with the United States.
Sunday’s election comes after the strong showing by the far-right outsider, Abelardo de la Espriella, in the first round of voting in May, where he won 43.74% of the vote. The leftist candidate Iván Cepeda from ruling Historic Pact coalition, who is backed by Colombian President Gustavo Petro, came in second place with just under 41% of the ballots.
Neither gained the majority needed to win outright and are facing each other in the second-round vote.
Shortly after the election, Donald Trump gave his “complete and total” backing to de la Espriella, due to his “tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally,” the US president wrote on Truth Social.
The election comes at a moment of mounting political tension and polarization in the country, hastened by the collapse of the political center and a rise in political violence, experts say.
De la Espriella has run a campaign built on spectacle. He has recorded music, marketed his own rum brand, and has relied on AI-generated content to connect with audiences on social media. Political analyst Miguel Luján told CNN that de la Espriella’s showmanship was undoubtedly a factor in his lead in the first-round vote.
A dual Colombian-US citizen, de la Espriella espouses an “iron fist” approach to crime and corruption. He’s spoken favorably of Trump’s policies and vowed to build mega prisons for Colombia’s criminal leaders in a similar vein to El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele. His campaign also advocates for a free-market economic agenda, casting a smaller state, lower taxes and resource extraction as the route to restoring order and growth.
Before entering politics, he was a high-profile criminal defense lawyer who built his career defending several controversial clients, including Alex Saab, the alleged financier and close ally of Venezuela’s ousted strongman Nicolas Maduro.
The 47-year-old has never held elected office and qualified for the ballot through citizen signatures rather than a major party.
De la Espriella has run on a culture war platform, casting himself as a defender of the “traditional family,” while his campaign has opposed abortion, adoption by same-sex couples, and “gender-ideology.” He has also said he would govern through emergency decrees to act fast against crime.
In an interview with CNN last month, the far-right candidate highlighted his ties to like-minded political circles in Washington and said he was confident he could fully restore diplomatic relations with the United States to jointly confront Colombia’s security crisis.
His rival, Iván Cepeda, aims to mobilize Petro’s existing following rather than courting voters beyond it. He is the son of an assassinated senator for Patriotic Union – a left-wing party formed in the 1980s during a peace process involving the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known by the acronym the FARC, and the Communist Party. Cepeda and his family spent years in exile in Europe, where he built a career as a human-rights advocate before entering the Senate.
The senator earned more first round votes than Petro won in 2022 – but fell short of the decisive victory the government had hoped for. He has cast de la Espriella as a “return to the past,” saying that his counterpart’s base represents the “fascist far right.”
He has centered his campaign on fighting inequality, deepening agrarian reform and tackling corruption. He has also criticized decades of US-backed counternarcotics policy and opposed military intervention in Latin America, reflecting a more skeptical view of Washington’s regional security agenda.
Cepeda defines himself as a humanist shaped by decades of human rights work. In an interview with CNN in late May, he ruled out perpetuating himself in power, saying four years is enough and that he “firmly believes in democratic rotation.”
Cepeda also said he would preserve parts of Petro’s social agenda, while signaling he would seek to change the government’s security strategy and renew struggles to combat corruption after a series of scandals marred the outgoing government. He said Colombia faced “immense challenges” and that any talks with armed groups must produce “clear results.”
What are the main issues?
Petro, who is constitutionally barred from seeking reelection, launched his 2022 “Total Peace” policy to address Colombia’s long-running internal armed conflict which has seen dissident factions, guerrilla groups and criminal organizations compete for territorial control.
Luis Villamarín, a retired Colombian Army colonel and security analyst, said nearly four years into Petro’s presidency, Colombians are seeing little evidence that the strategy has delivered the security gains it promised — a failure that is now shaping the presidential race.
“What we see is not less war. It is the same war, divided among more groups,” he said.
Since the landmark 2016 peace deal, Colombia’s conflict has grown more fragmented. The International Committee of the Red Cross said 2025 was the worst year for civilians in a decade, with more than 900 people killed or wounded by explosive devices. The assassination of the center-right presidential candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay last August while he was holding a rally in the capital Bogotá, sent shivers through the country, becoming a symbol of Petro’s shortcoming when it comes to fighting crime.
For de la Espriella, the resurgence of violence is proof that Colombia needs to return to a harder military approach. Cepeda, on the other hand, has argued that negotiations remain necessary in a conflict too dispersed to solve by force alone, though he acknowledges that “Total Peace” has fallen short.
De la Espriella has called for using aggressive military tactics against armed groups, including a controversial bombing campaign in coordination with the United States, banning imports of precursor materials used to make fentanyl — part of what he calls a “Plan Colombia 2.0” — and creating a specialized task force to capture extortion gang leaders.
Cepeda says Colombia cannot simply militarize its way out of a conflict and has offered a middle approach of defending dialogue, calling for stronger enforcement and more visible results. He has pledged to draw a “red line” against any negotiations with groups that continue assassinating social leaders, and told CNN that talks must produce “clear results” — though he has offered few specifics on how he would enforce that standard.
Security is not the only thing on voters’ minds. Analysts indicate that Colombians’ anxieties have moved toward the state of the health system after the Petro government failed to implement a public health reform.
Venezuela hangs over the race as well. Political scientist Alejo Vargas, a professor at the National University of Colombia, told CNN that the crisis next door has left many Colombians fearful that a second leftist government could push the country toward its neighbor’s fate — a worry sharpened by Petro’s outreach to Caracas, which the opposition has condemned.
What to expect on Sunday?
The election has not been lacking in drama. After initially raising concerns about preliminary results in the first round alongside Petro, Cepeda accepted the outcome. Electoral authorities and international observers have repeatedly defended the integrity of the process.
Last week, a lawmaker triggered a firestorm with her legally unviable attempt to suspend Petro until after the election. Petro has become a central player in the runoff, attacking de la Espriella campaign while promoting Cepeda, analysts say.
De la Espriella, nonetheless, heads into the second round with both momentum and arithmetic on his side. His first-round total already sat within reach of a majority, and the conservative bloc has moved quickly to consolidate behind him. Paloma Valencia, who finished a distant third with under 7%, threw her support to him within hours of the result, as did former President Álvaro Uribe.
Cepeda’s path is steeper. Analysts broadly agree he has less room to grow than his rival, having run a campaign built on mobilizing Petro’s existing base rather than reaching beyond it.
Regardless of the result, the election has already redrawn Colombia’s political map. “More than polarization, what we’re seeing is a broadening of the political landscape,” Sandra Borda, a political scientist at the Universidad de los Andes, told CNN.
“The peace process opened a lot of ground for the left. To the same degree, it inevitably (opened) ground to the right.”

LONDON (AP) — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing a career-defining decision: step down or fight a possible challenge from Labour Party rival Andy Burnham.
Starmer has publicly vowed to stay in office, but pressure is building as more and more Labour Party colleagues conclude that his time is up. Expectation is growing that he will announce a timetable for his resignation as soon as Monday. That’s the day Burnham will be sworn in as a lawmaker in the House of Commons after winning a special election last week.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle said Sunday that Starmer is “making time to reflect on the political realities, challenges and opportunities that he finds himself in.”
“I know he is a prime minister who always puts his country first,” Kyle told the BBC, though he said that reports that Starmer will resign are “speculation.”
Starmer is spending the weekend at Chequers, the country mansion used by prime ministers, with his family. He gave no public hint about his decision, but sent a Father’s Day message on social media.
“Being a dad is my greatest joy. Today, I’m thinking about my dad, and the father I am to my children because of him,” he wrote on X.
U.S. President Donald Trump weighed in even before an announcement, linking Starmer’s potential exit to two of his recurring bugbears: immigration and renewable energy.
“Keir Starmer will resign as Prime Minister of The United Kingdom. He failed badly on two very important subjects- IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well! President DJT,” Trump posted on his Truth Social network.
It was unclear whether Trump was responding to media reports about Starmer’s plans. The two leaders haven’t spoken over the weekend.
Starmer’s initially warm relationship with the president has soured in recent months over issues including the Iran war, which the U.K. didn’t join.
If Starmer quits, he will be the sixth prime minister to leave office in the past 10 years, an extraordinary rate of churn for the United Kingdom.
Discontent with the prime minister has been building for months, with Labour lawmakers desperate to reverse the government’s decline in popularity since Starmer led the center-left party to a landslide election victory in July 2024.
He has struggled to deliver promised economic growth, repair tattered public services and ease the cost of living, and has been hamstrung by repeated missteps, including his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, a scandal-tarnished friend of Jeffrey Epstein, as the U.K. ambassador to the United States.
Labour is losing liberal voters to the growing Green Party and facing a rising Reform UK, the Nigel Farage -led anti-immigration party that consistently leads in nationwide opinion polls.
Burnham, until this week the popular mayor of Greater Manchester, decisively won the seat of Makerfield in northwestern England in a special election held Thursday. He took almost 55% of the 45,510 votes cast, over 9,000 more than the Reform UK runner-up.
Now that Burnham is becoming a lawmaker, he’s in a position to challenge Starmer for leadership of the Labour Party. Burnham’s acceptance speech left no doubt that he wants to lead both the party and the country.
“Everyone knows that politics isn’t working,” he said. “Everyone can feel that the country isn’t where it should be. Tonight could, just could, be the turning point.”
It’s unclear whether Burnham would face a coronation or a challenge, if Starmer steps aside. Wes Streeting, who resigned as health secretary last month to protest Starmer’s leadership, has said that he will run in a contest if there is one.
Starmer congratulated Burnham on Friday, but insisted that he would fight any attempt to oust him.
“I will run, I will stand,” if there is a Labour leadership contest, Starmer said. “I’ve said repeatedly I’m not going to walk away from that.”
But Charlie Falconer, a senior Labour member of the House of Lords, said Saturday that Starmer has “absolutely no authority” left.
“There should be an agreed transition process in which Andy and Keir cooperate as to when the handover should take place,” he told the BBC.

For more than three weeks protesters have gathered peacefully in Tirana, the capital of Albania, cheered on by Americans who see them as plucky warriors against President Trump, Israel and the greed of the “1 percent.”
The protests were set off by public outrage over violent security guards at the site of a planned coastal development financed by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and investors from the Gulf with an estimated cost of more than $4 billion.
For Americans on the left, Albanians are resisting Trump family corruption and so-called billionaire vultures. Conspiracy theorists on the right are embracing a different theory; they see pushback against Israel and supposed plans for what they call a “new Epstein island” off the southern coast of one of Europe’s poorest nations.
Albanians actually taking part in the protests, however, beg to differ.
“Nobody here is protesting against Trump or Israel,” said Elis Kodra, 33, who turned up with his girlfriend for a recent rally with several thousand people outside the office of Albania’s beleaguered prime minister, Edi Rama.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico, who has built a reputation for his anti-corporate rhetoric and criticism of tech, reportedly spent mid-April traveling around the San Francisco Bay Area soliciting donations from deep-pocketed tech executives.
Talarico attended at least four California fundraisers organized by major Democratic fundraisers linked to the tech industry in April, according to invitations obtained by Politico and a source interviewed by the outlet.
The Democratic Senate hopeful criticizes the tech industry on his campaign website, accusing it of profiting off “predatory algorithms” that amplify extremism and promising to protect workers against “intrusive AI surveillance.”
The fundraisers took place in Palo Alto, the Mission District of San Francisco, Oakland and Marin County, according to Politico. Among the attendees were venture capitalists, including at least one who advises AI start-ups, wealthy Democratic donors and political staffers.
TALARICO TOUTS TEXAS ROOTS AS OUT-OF-STATE CASH POWERS SENATE CAMPAIGN
Talarico’s proximity to wealth creates tension with how he has presented himself on the campaign trail.
He has stated that “the biggest divide in this country is not left vs. right. It’s top vs. bottom,” argued that the “people at the top work so hard to keep us angry and divided because our unity is a threat to their wealth and power,” characterized lawmakers that take donations from “megadonors” as “puppet politicians,” accused “billionaires are waging war on the rest of us” and expressed a strong desire to hold corporations accountable.
He has also vowed not to accept corporate PAC funding, though he has taken money from corporate executives, the individuals who typically fund and control corporate PACs.
PROGRESSIVE TALARICO KNIFES BIDEN’S OPEN BORDER, TRIES MODERATING STANCE ON KEY ISSUES IN TEXAS SENATE RACE
While Talarico has raised over $40 million, the second most of any Senate candidate this cycle, the vast majority of that has come from small-dollar donors. Additionally, Texas Republican Senate nominee Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, has a history of accepting large-dollar donations, though he hasn’t taken a stance against the wealthy in the same way as Talarico.
“The only way to get big money out of our politics is to vote out politicians like Ken Paxton who want corporations and billionaires to decide our elections, not Texans,” Talarico campaign spokesman JT Ennis told Fox News Digital.
“James is the only candidate who’s outlined a comprehensive agenda to ban super PACs, ban corporate PACs, ban congressional stock trading and tax billionaires so we can fix this broken, corrupt political system. If anyone supports taxing billionaires more and limiting big money’s influence on our politics, they’re welcome to help defeat politicians like Ken Paxton, who rake in millions of dollars from special interests then enrich wealthy donors while working Texans struggle.”
Paxton campaign spokesperson Madison Cercy told Politico the fundraisers are “just another chapter in James Talarico’s saga of lying and hypocrisy as he runs a flip-flopping campaign across the state of Texas.”
ABBOTT SPOTLIGHTS NO-SHOW TALARICO, LAUNCHING TEXAS-SIZED CRIME CRACKDOWN
Fox News Digital previously reported that Talarico is far more reliant on out-of-state donors than Paxton, a trend common among Democrats challenging Republicans in swing states.
Democrats have sought to flip Texas blue for decades, often spending large sums of money in ill-fated attempts to dethrone Republican gubernatorial and senatorial incumbents. Some in the party feel that 2026 could be different from their past failures in the Lone Star.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Talarico’s open Christian faith, for one, is seen as something that could provide him with cross-party appeal. That, combined with his strong fundraising numbers, tendency to generate viral clips and an unpopular Republican in the White House, could propel Talarico to an upset victory.
In any case, the race for Senate in Texas is shaping up to be an expensive one. One Democratic fundraiser projected that the contest could cost north of half a billion dollars across all sides.

There is exasperation in the voice of a long time Labour adviser. But as every hour passes, it is more likely the UK will soon have its seventh prime minister in 10 years.
Talk of Sir Keir Starmer fighting is fading, his exit seems more likely as the weekend goes on. The prime minister is at his country retreat, Chequers, spending time with his wife.
The reasons for Labour to switch leader are compelling. Andy Burnham looks like a winner. He has shown he can beat Reform, who until this moment have seemed a deadly threat to Labour. He is popular in the country, compared to most politicians at least. There are swathes of MPs eager to back him and his brand, believing he’s the one who can improve the party’s grim position.
He’s been successful and highly visible as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, known just as Andy everywhere he goes, one of his backers tells me.
He’s no stranger to government either, having served as health secretary, culture secretary, and as a Treasury minister years ago. And most of all, Burnham’s shown in the Makerfield by-election campaign he has that valuable talent in politics – a capacity to make people feel good.
There have been more than a dozen big U-turns. Resignations. The mess over Lord Mandelson’s job. And after dreadful election results in 2025 and 2026, wipe-out in Wales. Starmer has seemed like a loser to many in his own party.
It is not even two years since his massive win at the general election. But the political perception that he has an appeal to voters? Brutally, that’s long gone.
On Friday, the prime minister was still arguing to the cameras that he would fight if Burnham challenges him, refusing to acknowledge that is not an “if”, it’s a “when”.
Even privately some of his backers were still adamant he would run, talking of donors who’ve given money to run a campaign and office spaces being found.
One source claimed his conversations with cabinet ministers in the afternoon were not about whether he had the authority to stay in office, but the arguments he’d make in a leadership race.
Several sources told me Starmer really does believe he could beat Burnham in a leadership contest, and concluded that a fortnight ago after watching him on BBC Question Time on a Thursday, then failing to explain the borrowing and spending rules in a Newsnight interview on the Friday.
A government insider said: “On Saturday he phoned his closest allies and said, ‘I’m sure I could win.'”
But the widespread assumption this weekend in the party is that Burnham would beat him hands down, another government source said: “It’s nuts” to imagine the PM could come out on top.
An increasing number of ministers, previously loyal to Starmer now think it’s time, as one cabinet source told me, they “wouldn’t want the prime minister to humiliate himself” in a race.
The chances of him staying to fight are diminishing. But what is still a mystery this weekend is exactly how Starmer will respond.
“It’s very hard for people to know a person who doesn’t know themselves,” said another government insider.
Not just for what’s happening now, but how they see he’s chipped in unhelpfully from the sidelines since the day Starmer moved into No 10.
One Starmer ally told me: “This is not a chase, these are big decisions about who is going to run the country – it can’t be rushed 20 minutes after a by-election.”
The former minister, Jess Philips, told the BBC this morning that Burnham or any other candidates must be “tested with the rigour of at least some manner of contest”.
There’s also concern about the precedent of ousting a leader off the back of a by-election, the votes from a group of only 77,000 people deciding everything for the whole country. Burnham would have no mandate from the public, without a general election.
And what happens if Labour’s standing didn’t improve? Might those calling for a removal van for the current prime minister do the same again? What if there were another by-election when Prime Minister Burnham was in trouble?
Is it mad to imagine that other big names from the past – David Miliband or, even Ed Balls – might abandon New York and the breakfast TV sofa, and fancy a comeback too?
Just as there are compelling reasons for Labour to make the switch, there are serious risks. There may yet be a contest, and another candidate aside from Wes Streeting could find the 81 names to run.
But with 100 MPs now calling for Starmer to go and support for him to stay in the cabinet fading, one senior party figure predicts “he’ll realise this weekend that he can’t keep the Cabinet and ministers together and will have to go”.
Labour has found itself in a strange situation it promised you it would never reach – en route to removing its first prime minister to win in 14 years. And congratulating themselves for winning a seat they already held, so they can get rid of the man whose campaigning won them all the seats they have.
The vow not to repeat the Conservatives’ habit of switching prime minister might be the last political promise Starmer breaks.
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. Emma Barnett and John Simpson bring their pick of the most thought-provoking deep reads and analysis, every Saturday. Sign up for the newsletter here