Colombia joins China's Belt and Road Initiative amid tensions with Trump
The two nations signed a memorandum of understanding Wednesday 'welcoming China's initiative to promote the Silk Road Economic Belt' and pledging greater cooperation in a range of areas including infrastructure and trade.
The move by Colombia, traditionally one of Washington's strongest regional allies, is the latest indication of Beijing's growing challenge to U.S. influence in Latin America, where 21 nations had already signed up to the Chinese initiative. Petro has specifically clashed with U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened to impose 25% tariffs and revoke government officials' visas during a deportation spat in January.
Petro, who started a week-long visit to China on Saturday, announced his plans to increase ties with China in a speech to supporters in Bogotá on May 6.
'I am not in a trade competition with China or the United States. Colombia will be won by whoever makes the best offer during the bidding process,' the president said.
China and Colombia have increased economic cooperation in the past few years, most recently forming a working group to discuss joining the Belt and Road Initiative in October 2024. But the deal signed Wednesday still lacks specific project plans or funding pledges, instead outlining areas where the two nations plan to cooperate.
It is also not legally binding, allowing the winner of Colombia's 2026 presidential elections to withdraw from the agreement.
'This is right now much more a political move by the Colombian government than it is an economic move,' said Sergio Gúzman, director at Colombia Risk Analysis, a political risk consultancy.
The analyst described Petro's decision to sign the deal as a challenge to Trump's attempts to counter Chinese influence in the region and increase Washington's economic power.
In his speech in Bogotá before visiting China, Petro questioned why Colombia should give the U.S. preferential treatment.
'Colombia is free to talk to China. What harm has China done to us? Did it invade us, did it take Panama from us?' he said, referring to Panama's U.S.-backed secession from Colombia in 1903.
But Colombian business leaders fear the president's decision will trigger short-term retaliation by the Trump administration.
'We have already seen indications that the United States is deploying a strategy of pressuring its partners in the region in order to obtain preferential treatment,' said Javier Díaz Molina, executive president of Colombia's National Association of Foreign Trade.
Despite Trump imposing 10% tariffs on Colombian exports like petroleum and coffee, many business leaders want to prioritize the country's relationship with the U.S., fearing China cannot replace it as an export market.
'Colombia, as a sovereign state, can and should explore new trade opportunities. However… these must generate concrete benefits,' said María Claudia Lacouture, president of the Colombian-American Chamber of Commerce.
While Colombia imports a similar amount of goods from China and the U.S., it exports far more to America and had a $13.5 billion trade deficit with Beijing last year.
'The commercial relationship with the United States is not only more stable and solid, but it is also more balanced and complementary,' added Lacouture.
The Belt and Road Initiative has seen large-scale investment in megaprojects including ports, railways and energy infrastructure in other Latin American nations like Peru, Chile and Argentina.
While critics of the program say it can trap poor countries in debt and worsen environmental and labor standards, others argue loan terms are no worse than those of the Washington-backed International Monetary Fund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Economists Flip To Trump's Side After Jobs Data–And Jerome Powell Is Now In Trouble
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Just two days after Fed Chair Jerome Powell refused to pre-commit to a September rate cut, the U.S. labor market did it for him. SPY ETF breaks past support. See real-time price here. A weak July jobs report and the biggest downward 2-month revisions since 2020 have economists—and markets—racing to President Donald Trump's side on calling for lower interest rates. Labor Data Breaks Down And Manufacturing Is Not Helping Either The U.S. economy added just 73,000 jobs in July, far below the 110,000 expected. But the real shock came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revising May and June non-farm payrolls down by a combined 258,000—erasing what were thought to be solid job gains. This is the largest two-month revision since the COVID-19 shock in 2020. Trending: Be part of the breakthrough that could replace plastic as we know it— Private-sector job growth was narrowly concentrated, driven largely by healthcare, while government payrolls fell by 10,000. The unemployment rate edged up to 4.2%, reversing June's drop. Wages, however, remained hot. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% month-over-month and 3.9% year-over-year, both beating forecasts. Still, signs of underlying weakness in the labor force—especially due to declining immigration—are mounting. Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturing continues to struggle, signaling ongoing headwinds from tariff-driven uncertainty. The ISM Manufacturing PMI decreased to 48 in July 2025, down from 49 in June and below the expected level of 49.5. It marked the fifth straight month of contraction and the lowest reading since October 2024. Wall Street Moves To The Dovish Side Markets are now fully pricing in two rate cuts by December, with the chance of a September 25-basis-point cut surging to 76% Friday, more than double Thursday's odds. Oxford Economics' Nancy Vanden Houten said the weak July report and historic revisions "raise the odds of a Fed rate cut in September." She warned that slower labor force growth, especially among foreign-born workers, may mask deeper structural issues."The foreign-born labor force has shrunk by 1.2 million in just six months," she said, linking the decline to the Trump administration's immigration policies. "Powell's take on September not being a live meeting might be under revision as we speak," said BOK Financial's analyst Steve Wyett, citing the sharp downward revisions. David Russell, analyst at TradeStation, indicated that "huge negative revisions undermine beliefs about the strength of the labor market," but warned that "there are still signs of stagflation, with hourly earnings up more than expected." Jamie Cox, managing partner for Harris Financial Group, weighed in. "Powell is going to regret holding rates steady this week. September is a lock for a rate cut—and it might even be 50 basis points." Bill Adams, chief economist at Comerica Bank, struck a more cautious tone. He said the weak July jobs report adds pressure on the Fed to cut rates later this year, but warned the decision "isn't a slam dunk." Adams said the Fed will closely watch the August jobs report and inflation data before making its next move. Yields on two-year Treasury bonds, which are highly sensitive to interest-rate expectations, tumbled 22 basis points to 3.75%, eyeing the largest intraday drop since August 2024. The U.S. dollar index – as closely tracked by the Invesco DB USD Index Bullish Fund ETF (NYSE:UUP) – fell 1.2% by 10:30 a.m. in New York, trimming weekly gains. Read Next: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation. Arrived Home's Private Credit Fund's has historically paid an annualized dividend yield of 8.1%*, which provides access to a pool of short-term loans backed by residential real estate with just a $100 minimum. Photo: Shutterstock This article Economists Flip To Trump's Side After Jobs Data–And Jerome Powell Is Now In Trouble originally appeared on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
29 minutes ago
Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.
