Medellín, Colombia – Prominent female journalists, writers, academics and columnists in Colombia have drafted and signed a declaration titled ‘No to the pact of silence’ in response to former president Andrés Pastrana’s appearance in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002) was mentioned 57 times in files linked to Epstein, who was convicted for sexual trafficking and exploitation of minors before his death in 2019. The ex-president appeared in the batch of documents released last November by the U.S. Justice Department.

The declaration called on Pastrana to issue a statement as a matter of public interest, posed 20 questions to the ex-president, and demanded urgent measures to protect women and girls in Colombia.

‘No to the pact of silence’

The Epstein files have caused scandal across the world, implicating some of the world’s richest and most powerful people, including names like Bill Clinton and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

Epstein and his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, were both convicted for their involvement in the sex trafficking network. Epstein was found dead in 2019 in his prison cell in New York and Maxwell has been in prison since 2022.

In Colombia, the release last November of 3 million additional files linked to investigations into Epstein revealed connections between Pastrana and the late billionaire.

These included: a photo of Pastrana and Maxwell wearing Colombian Air Force uniforms at a military base; compromising emails with Maxwell; testimonies in which Maxwell said the two were friends and that she flew a Black Hawk helicopter in Colombia; and an alleged flight on a private plane with Epstein and disgraced modelling agent Jean Luc Brunel, who was accused of procuring minors for the late financier.

The ‘No to the pact of silence’ declaration was conceived mostly by female journalists while they were investigating Pastrana’s involvement in the files. 

The statement was published on February 24, signed by 35 women, but has since been opened up to include other women through one-to-one invitations.

“The crimes committed by Epstein and Maxwell, and their extensive network of accomplices among the world’s social, political, financial, and intellectual elites, must be subject to exposure, investigation, thorough analysis, and, if applicable sanctions,” the declaration stated.

Colombian journalist Ana Cristina Restrepo, one of the creators and signatories of the declaration, spoke to The Bogotá Post about the reasons behind it.

“It is of public interest in several aspects. First, because he is a person who was elected by popular vote. He was a President of the Republic, and with greater responsibility comes greater scrutiny from citizens,” said Restrepo.

Currently, the declaration has 171 signatures that meet three requirements: to be a woman, to be a feminist, and to have a public voice. Signatures must also be made in individual names, not on behalf of collectives. 

While there were men that showed support and wanted to sign the statement, Restrepo explained that only women were allowed: “Many thanks, but they – men – can write their own declaration. Why didn’t they think of it before?” “It has a symbolic power that we are all women,” she added.

The statement also took aim at the wider issue of sexual violence in Colombia. It highlighted that more than 50 minors are abused per day, according to the Institute of Legal Medicine in 2025. Also, in the last five years more than 100,000 girls and adolescents were victims of sexual abuse, according to the Colombian Family Welfare Institute (ICBF).

“Women’s human rights and the primacy of girls’ rights are historic achievements: protecting them is a mandatory duty. We demand that the silence surrounding the mentions of Andrés Pastrana in the Epstein files be broken,” the declaration stated.

Restrepo said that the pact of silence their statement seeks to redress is “one arm of something bigger”: a patriarchal pact that has existed for centuries.

“It is a tacit pact among men who hold power and belong to the elites to protect one another in the different things they do – not only sexual crimes, but also, let’s say, economic matters,and issues in society. They cover for each other,” she explained.

20 questions after more than 20 years of silence

In addition to calling for an end to the pact of silence, the declaration posed 20 questions to Pastrana. These were drafted based on the Epstein files, but also with other evidence, following a methodological journalistic investigation by Restrepo, Diana Salinas and the Cuestión Pública team, Daniel Coronell and Ana Bejarano. 

“Everything is based on published and known facts, not on assumptions,” Restrepo explained.

Each question has a lengthy preamble that contains corroborated evidence including pictures, email threads, timelines, interviews, and testimonies. All questions have to do with Pastrana’s relationship with Epstein and Maxwell, their meetings, mentions in the list, contradictions in his statements and related matters.

“Asking questions is not incrimination,” she said. “We are saying: If he has nothing to hide, then answer.”

The enduring pact of silence

Since the declaration was released, many prominent figures have come to Pastrana’s defense. 

Following its publication, Pastrana’s former ministers and others who were part of his administration issued a statement of solidarity with the ex-president: “We know Andrés Pastrana and we worked with him as part of his administration… He is a good man of strong values, respectful of his family and human dignity. His character and his track record do not correspond to being involved in infamous conduct,” the statement said. 

The signatories have also faced verbal attacks since the declaration was published, including from public figures. One of the primary sources of the abuse has been the former president’s brother, Juan Carlos Pastrana, with Restrepo saying, “he has been one of the most violent.”

For Restrepo, this reaction highlights the very problem the declaration seeks to redress – that powerful men protect their own. 

She also noted that the so-called ‘pact of silence’ extends far beyond Colombia.

“The U.S. Department of Justice releases the Epstein files. In other words, they already knew this information and had it stored… There are files from 2003; there are files that are more than 20 years old,” said Restrepo.

“How do you manage to keep information about a network involved in trafficking and sexual exploitation of minors for more than 20 years if not through a pact of silence? So it is a pact of silence that exists not only in Colombia, but also among elites around the world,” she concluded.

Featured image description: Split image of former President Andres Pastrana and the initial declaration signed by 35 women.

Featured image credit: @AndresPastrana_ via X.

The post Top female journalists demand answers over Colombia ex-president’s Epstein links appeared first on The Bogotá Post.

Bogotá, Colombia — In the past week, Colombians have taken to the streets on two occasions to defend the government’s minimum wage increase as it faces legal attacks by business sectors. 

On January 28 and February 3, Colombians marched in major cities in support of the landmark 23% wage increase established at the end of last year.

But the future of Decree 1469, which established what the government has called a “living wage”, remains uncertain.

“This is a major step forward by the government of Gustavo Petro. It is not just an increase; it is the dignification of workers’ wages in Colombia. That is why, as union members and as teachers, we support this mission, which directly impacts people’s everyday lives,” Oscar Patiño, an attendee of the January 28 march, told The Bogotá Post. 

For Patiño, a teacher and union leader, the protest represented a demand that the Council of State act as a guarantor of workers’ rights through its role in defining public policy.

He was part of a wave of sit-in protests in cities across the country called by labor unions, with the backing of the government, to defend the minimum wage hike. The 23% raise brings the monthly base salary to COP$1,750,905 (USD$477) and the transportation allowance to COP $249,095 (USD$68). 

In Bogotá, the demonstration was joined by Labor Minister Antonio Sanguino and lawmakers from the pro-government bloc, including Senator Wilson Arias.

“This increase no longer leaves workers’ wages below key economic indicators. It is for the improvement of their quality of life,” said another attendee, who did not want to be named.

As well as raising the base salary, December’s decree incorporated the concept of a “living wage” as an additional criterion for setting the increase. This concept is not new: it is enshrined in Article 53 of Colombia’s Political Constitution and in International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 131 of 1970.

“In that ruling, the Constitutional Court reminds the government that when setting wages, remuneration must be minimum, I quote, ‘living, and adjustable,’” said Mery Laura Perdomo, a lawyer specializing in labor, social security, and constitutional law. 

The “living wage” responds to the real cost of living, unlike the minimum wage, which barely covers basic needs. “This helps generate conditions for a dignified life in a Social State governed by the rule of law … The major shift is from a minimum wage to a living wage,” said Labor Minister Antonio Sanguino.

The government passed the decree raising wages unilaterally after failing to reach consensus with government representatives, business associations and labor unions. It determined the base salary raise based on economic criteria such as inflation (CPI), GDP, the contribution of wages to national income, inflation targets, and productivity.

But the decree generated dissatisfaction among business associations and parts of the public, prompting them to pursue legal action. 

Perdomo notes that there are two types of challenges to the wage increase: tutela actions—arguing violations of fundamental rights, specifically due process or harm to certain companies—and a lawsuit seeking the annulment of the decree.

“I believe there are no sufficient legal grounds for a potential declaration of unconstitutionality,” Perdomo said, noting that the decree grounds its constitutionality in ILO conventions, the constitution, and technical and economic studies and criteria. “There are constitutional, legal, jurisprudential, and technical-economic grounds to say that this minimum wage decree could not be declared unconstitutional.”

So far, tutela actions have not succeeded, according to Perdomo. As for the annulment lawsuit—filed by the National Federation of Merchants (Fenalco)—it is currently under review and awaiting evaluation by the assigned judge, according to the Colombian economic magazine Portafolio. The claim argues that constitutional and legal criteria were disregarded.

Portafolio also reports that the risks of the legal debate lie in the possibility that, while a final decision is pending, the Council of State could not only annul the decree but also order a provisional suspension of the wage increase.

But Perdomo warned this would be an unpopular move ahead of next month’s legislative elections: “Politically, this is risky in an electoral context, since a large portion of the population—especially low-income earners—is satisfied with the minimum wage increase. Overturning it could sour the political climate on the eve of elections and have a real impact on voting intentions.”

Meanwhile, Petro’s ruling Pacto Historico coalition, which has formed into a party ahead of the elections, has made a point of championing the minimum wage increase. 

On Tuesday, it called for rallies across the country to support the living wage, justice, and labor dignity. 

“The living wage is not a favor; it is a right. A dignified life begins with fair work, and this mobilization reminds us that labor dignity is the foundation of social justice,” declared Health Minister Guillermo Alfonso Jaramillo from Bogotá’s Plaza de Bolívar.

The post Colombians take to streets as landmark minimum wage hike faces legal challenges  appeared first on The Bogotá Post.

Bogotá, Colombia — Thousands gathered in Plaza de Bolívar after answering Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s call to mobilize against threats to Colombia’s national sovereignty from the United States.

Petro called for people to take to the streets in every public square across the country after Trump said military action in Colombia “sounds good” on Sunday, January 4,, just a day after removing Nicolás Maduro from power in neighboring Venezuela.

While Petro was expected to deliver a rousing speech against U.S. intervention, he told the crowd that he had to make his remarks less “harsh” after a conciliatory call with Trump just minutes before addressing demonstrators.

Plaza de Bolívar, located in central Bogotá near Congress and the Casa de Nariño presidential residence and office, hosted over 20,000 demonstrators and was adorned with flags and protest signs from the afternoon into the night of January 7.

“And no, no, I do not feel like being a North American colony. And yes, yes, I do feel like being a free and sovereign Colombia,” protesters chanted.

Many participants also used the demonstration to voice opposition to related issues, such as the exploitation of natural resources and the presence of foreign military bases.

“If we don’t defend our country, who will do it for us?” said one demonstrator. Other attendees stressed that the mobilization was not only about Colombia, but about Latin America as a whole.

Throughout the day, the rally featured musical performances and included the presence of labor and union representatives, public institutions, and a large portion of the presidential cabinet. The president and several ministers delivered speeches from the main stage.

President Petro presented some official data and concrete results from three years of his administration — including his fight against drug trafficking — many of them in comparison with the previous government. Among the achievements cited was the seizure of 2,800 tons of illegal substances by December 31, 2025. 

“My goal was zero blows against Colombia’s peasantry, voluntary crop substitution; we are now at 30,000 hectares registered,” he explained.

Petro publicly accused the U.S. far right and Colombian politicians of having convinced Trump that he “ran cocaine factories” and was a “front man for Maduro.” “We are not enemies of any people in the world,” he stated during his speech. Petro also said he spoke with Delcy Rodríguez, Interim President of Venezuela.

The phone call was later confirmed by Trump through his Truth Social account: “It was a great Honor to speak with the President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who called to explain the situation of drugs and other disagreements that we had. I appreciated his call and tone, and look forward to meeting him in the near future. Arrangements are being made between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Foreign Minister of Colombia. This meeting will take place in the White House in Washington, D.C..” 

In closing, the Colombian leader reaffirmed his stance on national sovereignty, as well as his differences with Trump over events in Venezuela — which he described as “illegal” — and other issues.

“To the mothers of Colombia, I say that the country clearly stands up for the defense of national sovereignty, because [Álvaro] Uribe is wrong. If they touch Petro, they touch Colombia. And if they touch Colombia, Colombia responds as its history has taught it—plain and simple.”

Featured image: Demonstrators at Plaza de Bolívar in central Bogotá
Author: Cristina Dorado Suaza

This article originally appeared on Latin America Reports and was re-published with permission.

The post Thousands rally in Colombia’s Plaza de Bolívar following President Petro’s call with Trump appeared first on The Bogotá Post.

A handful of Colombian and Latin American authors this week said they will not attend an upcoming literature festival in Cartagena due to the planned presence of Nobel Peace Prize winner and Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado.

Author Laura Restrepo was the first to announce her decision not to attend Hay Festival, which takes place in Cartagena from January 29 through February 1, 2026. The author cited Machado’s pro-U.S. intervention stance in Venezuela as her reason for boycotting the festival. 

“The reason is the attendance of Ms. María Corino Machado, an active supporter of U.S. military intervention in Latin America,” Restrepo wrote.

Since September, the U.S. military has gathered a mass of warships off the coast of Venezuela, blowing up small boats it alleges are ferrying drug traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean. U.S. President Donal Trump has said President Nicolás Maduro’s days are numbered and authorized the CIA to conduct clandestine operations in the country in an apparent effort to oust the dictator. 

Restrepo sent a letter withdrawing her participation to Hay Festival Director Cristina de la Fuerte. She said that while she understands the festival’s philosophy of fostering debate from diverse perspectives, with Machado, “a line was crossed.”

“One cannot give a platform or facilitate an audience for someone who, like Ms. Machado, promotes positions and activities in favor of the subjugation of our peoples and against the sovereignty of our countries. Imperialist intervention is not something to be debated, but rather rejected outright,” said the author and former journalist. 

Colombia’s former Culture Minister, Juan David Correa, shared Restrepo’s letter on X, expressing his solidarity with those who withdrew from the festival. “And for all those who believe that one thing is freedom of expression, and another is inviting the denial of national sovereignty,” he wrote.

Restrepo’s boycott was soon joined by poet and writer Giuseppe Caputo, who made his public statement through his Instagram account:

“In the face of the serious situation of escalating imperial violence, it is better to cancel participation in a festival taking place in front of the bombarded waters of the Caribbean Sea, one that has chosen to invite someone who dedicated a peace prize to the fascist responsible for these crimes,” he wrote.

Machado, who received the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, has expressed her support for the Trump administration and its military actions.

In a recent interview on CBS’ Face the Nation, she showed her support for U.S. interventionism in the country. “I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy,” she said in response to the oil tanker seizure and apparent economic blockade by the U.S. She added that, as Venezuelan people “are very grateful to him.”

In addition to Colombian authors, other Latin American writers have expressed their discontent with Machado’s attendance. Dominican activist Mikaelah Drullard and Bolivian psychologist María Galindo have also declined to attend the festival. 

In response, the Hay Festival issued an official statement asserting that, as a non-profit foundation, it provides spaces for reflection and plural conversation, reflected in the “voices coming from different backgrounds, traditions, and positions,” featured in its programming.

“We reaffirm our conviction that open, plural, and constructive dialogue remains an essential tool for addressing complex realities,” the statement read.

The organization also stated that the festival does not align with or endorse the opinions, political positions, or statements of its invited guests.

“We respect the decision of those who have chosen not to take part in this edition, because we understand culture and thought as territories where dissent, critical reflection, and respectful listening are fundamental to citizenship.”

The Hay Festival began in Hay-on-Wye, Wales, United Kingdom in 1987 and has expanded to global editions in Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Spain and the U.S. The festival focuses on literature, music, journalism, current affairs, philosophy, film, theater, and related fields. Its website says the festival “celebrates and inspires different opinions, perspectives, and points of view.”

The post Authors boycott Cartagena literature festival in protest of María Corina Machado’s attendance  appeared first on The Bogotá Post.

On December 6, during a speech to commemorate the 1928 “Banana Massacre,” President Gustavo Petro recognized Colombian state complicity in the massacre, which has become a milestone of the labor rights movement in the country. 

“The president at the time [Miguel Abadía Méndez] ordered General [Carlos] Cortés Vargas to fire upon the bodies of thousands of unarmed people. The United States ambassador at the time [Jefferson Caffery] stated in a cable that at least one thousand people were killed (…) History was unable to determine the exact number,” said Petro.  

On December 5 and 6, 1928, workers on the United Fruit Company banana plantation in the Caribbean coastal town of Ciénaga were striking poor conditions when Colombia’s national army – in collusion with the U.S. fruit company – killed workers in an attempt to quell the strike.

“I have the honor to report that the Bogotá representative of the United Fruit Company told me yesterday that the total number of strikers killed by the Colombian military exceeded 1,000,” wrote then-U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Jefferson Caffery. United Fruit Company is known today as Chiquita Brands International. 

The president also reflected on what he deemed similarities between U.S.-Colombia relations 97 years ago and today. 

“It seems that much of what happened then is happening today,” said Petro. “There was a threat of invasion of Colombia by the United States. They threatened that if the national government at that time, led by the conservative Miguel Abadía Méndez, supported the banana workers, there would be an invasion.” 

He went on to mention that it “seems that things are similar today” with the threat of a U.S. invasion “within our own country, if the president doesn’t say or do what they want.” 

In addition to calling Petro a drug trafficker and sanctioning him, the Trump administration has killed at least 95 people – some of them Colombian – in boat strikes off the Pacific and Caribbean coasts, and has even threatened to strike drug installations within Colombian territory. 

Remembering the Banana Massacre, nearly 100 years on 

This year’s remembrance event featured a pop-up museum about the massacre; floral offerings for victims; and a lot of music, including a performance of “Las Bananeras” by Leo Infante.

Discussion and community forums were also organized by the Ministry of Labor, the Escuela Nacional Sindical (National Union School), and the CONARE, which is the committee created to represent the union movement in the collective reparation process as a victimized group in the Colombian armed conflict.

The Bogotá Post sat in on some of the sessions where participants discussed memory, lived experiences, reparations, and violence.

On the main stage, President Petro and members of his cabinet listened to various speakers, including Mildreth Maldonado Pava, representing the descendants of victims and survivors of the massacre. Her grandfather was a survivor.

“It is difficult, but not impossible, to know the truth,” said Maldonado. “I am here fulfilling a dream that has been waiting for nearly 100 years – a dream that hurts, but that has patiently endured amid so many other pains.”

When it was his turn to address the crowd, President Petro called on security forces to respect the Constitution and human dignity.

“The public armed forces of any country in the world obey their president only as long as the Constitution is respected; but when an order from a president – whoever that president may be, anywhere in the world – goes against the Constitution of their own country or goes against the Constitution of humanity itself … no member of the military should obey such orders.”

Over Dorado Cardona, general secretary of The Central Union of Workers (CUT) and a spokesperson for the union and workers movement, highlighted the importance of reparation of the union movement as a collective victim as a key commitment for the current government.

“We, as the union movement, say, ‘we only die when we are forgotten,’” Dorado bellowed.

Towards collective reparation

Colombia remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for labor activists. There have been 15,481 registered acts of violence against Colombian trade unionists between 1970 and 2021, according to Sinderh, a database from Colombia’s National Union School.

Strikingly, 63% of all trade unionist murders worldwide between 1971 and 2023 occurred in Colombia, according to the Ministry of Labor with figures provided by the International Labor Organization (ILO).

In Colombia, Collective Reparation processes – distinct from reparations to individual victims of the internal conflict – constitute a comprehensive route to remedy the harms suffered by groups affected by the armed conflict. 

Many in the country argue that given all the anti-unionist violence suffered, there remains an outstanding debt to the union movement as a whole. Petro’s Government was the first to recognize the movement as a subject of Collective reparation in 2023. 

“The union movement has been deeply harmed,” Nadiezhda Natazha Henríquez Chacín, a magistrate for the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), Colombia’s transitional justice mechanism, told The Bogota Post. 

“These years of war have almost completely destroyed it down to its foundations (…) Union struggles have won labor rights, yet the movement has been persecuted and stigmatized,” the Ciénaga-born judge added.

For the union movement, the difficulties with the entities arising in the collective reparation process contradict the significant effort the government has made through its social reforms.

“It is not understood that the reparation of the union movement must go beyond administrative measures (…) The essential Collective Reparation Plan must be guaranteed as a public policy that extends beyond any single Government and becomes a State policy,” Dorado Cardona, the union leader, stated.

“It is necessary to rebuild, to transform; this work of memory is essential, but it is also a form of transformative reparation,” the magistrate remarked.

The post Petro said Colombian state complicit in 1928 ‘Banana Massacre’ at commemoration event appeared first on The Bogotá Post.