1. In a nutshell, what is your assessment of the first two months of the De la Espriella government ? What are the main challenges or risks?
My assessment is that we are facing an administration that sows fear every day, and seeks to shift the boundaries of what we consider acceptable in a democracy. There are three latent risks: the weakening of checks and balances on power, a security policy that normalizes human rights violations, and an offensive against the equality and autonomy of women and LGBTQ+ people. The current pressure on the system of transitional justice and the waging of a “cultural battle” by the Ministry of Culture show that these fronts are advancing simultaneously.
I am particularly concerned that institutional deterioration could occur through administrative and budgetary decisions, without the need of major legal reforms. The proposal to cut funding for the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) and the Search Unit for Missing Persons illustrates this risk. An institution may retain its name and its mandates but lose its capacity to guarantee rights. For victims, this has drastic consequences in terms of the search for truth, access to justice and reparations.
From a feminist perspective, I also see a fierce struggle over who can make decisions about their own bodies, which families deserve recognition, and whose lives receive state protection. Colombia’s withdrawal from the international coalition for LGBTIQ+ rights is a concrete step in that direction. The development plan includes a ban on abortion. My interpretation is that these agendas are part of the same project to scale back the state’s role in matters of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Some LGBTQ+ activists received threats yesterday, and that is just the beginning of a government based on fear, in the name of “Christ the King”.
2. How is the ecosystem that supports Abelardo structured, particularly in regard to its religious and economic elites composition?
I see it as an alliance between conservative religious networks, sectors of the economic elite, traditional political structures, and media figures. Each contributes different resources—such as mobilization capacity, funding, institutional access, or amplification of their message. Their convergence around Abelardo does not mean they have identical interests, but they are increasingly taking steps together.
A study recently published by La Silla Vacía identified specific connections between their campaign and the government. Specifically, Marco Fidel Acosta, presented as the campaign’s “faith manager,” was appointed to the National Savings Fund. Pastor John Milton Rodríguez was tasked with winding up the Ministry of Equality. Priest Rodolfo Londoño was appointed as the government representative on the boards of directors of five public universities. Members of Congress from the International Charismatic Mission are also pushing for restrictions on gender transition among minors, particularly through a bill targeting transgender children. My concern is the ability of these networks to turn their particular convictions into decisions and policies that affect all citizens.
On the economic front, there are connections between the group involved in the presidential campaign, the banking sector, the media, and government appointments. For example, the campaign record registered a big loan from Jaime Gilinski’s bank for the runoff election. This was followed by the appointment of Tania Gilinski as ambassador in Israel. These connections warrant public scrutiny, although they do not, on their own, prove any evidenced based improper quid pro quo.
But, not all business leaders appear to be completely united. Recent tensions with Bruce MacMaster and the responses in defense of trade union autonomy reveal differences. My interpretation is that the government seeks economic support and, at the same time, attempts to restrain its dialogue with sectors that retain their independence—though these are becoming increasingly few in number. It is in the interest of major business leaders to have the full government’s support.
3. How did the progressive camp perceive Abelardo’s rise to power?
Colombia has a very active and representative progressive citizenry that recognizes constitutional protection and fundamental rights as tools for participating, demanding limits on power, and defending democracy. Nearly half of Colombia did not vote for the president-elect, and we will see and feel the effects of this throughout his entire term. We have seen this in the legal actions taken against the government’s violation of religious neutrality and the dehumanizing nature of the videos released by the president, which have resulted in favorable rulings. These responses show that there is a capacity to react and that judicial oversight remains an important avenue for defending rights.
Civil society organizations have also been active in many fronts: they have documented rulings, monitored government measures, and denounced their consequences. This work continues despite the fear of direct reprisals. That is why I believe it is important to recognize that publicly maintaining a critical stance in relation to the government requires effort, organization, and courage.
The voices of the LGBTIQ+ movement have been especially important in warning of the risks posed by this agenda. The challenge is to ensure that these warnings are understood as a shared democratic concern and that the various citizen responses are coordinated. Society is reacting; we need to strengthen its capacity so that court rulings are enforced, complaints have real impact, and those who defend rights can continue their work with safeguards.
4. When it comes to gender, sexuality, and abortion, are trans rights the main target? Is abortion also at risk?
At this moment, trans rights—especially those of children and adolescents—are one of the most visible targets of the ultra-right legislative offensive. The government’s support for the so-called “Laura Law” demonstrates this. This bill, currently before Congress, seeks to ban puberty blockers and hormone therapies for minors and provides for sanctions against professionals and institutions that allow them. We must clarify that this is a bill, not a ban already in effect.
My interpretation is that child protection is once again being used to portray trans people and their supporters as a threat. This is based on lies and misinformation. Several doctors and scientists have demanded rigor and respect for human dignity and have clarified that no gender-affirming surgeries have been performed on minors in Colombia. This clarification is important because we cannot accept the conflation of different procedures to justify broad legal restrictions.
Abortion is also at risk, although we must distinguish between political intent and an actual legal change. A few weeks ago, a document from the National Planning Department (DNP) was leaked that included proposals to restrict abortion, but the agency itself stated that it was a preliminary draft and not an official decision. Furthermore, the departure of Hannah Escobar from the Ministry of Health—who lasted less than a week as director of the Directorate of Medicines and Health Technologies amid questions about her stance on voluntary termination of pregnancy—was reported by a Blu Radio journalist, as the result of a direct presidential intervention. These are troubling signs, with varying degrees of confirmation.
Ruling C-055 of 2022 decriminalized abortion up to the 24th week and maintained the grounds for abortion recognized since 2006 beyond that point. That legal framework does not disappear because of a presidential statement or a mass demand from members of Congress. But my concern extends to day-to-day access; the right to abortion may become more difficult to exercise if stigma, delays, or institutional barriers increase. That is why we must defend both constitutional protections and the practical conditions necessary to access services.
5. Finally, how do you see the challenges of resisting this offensive?
The first challenge is to build a broad democratic response. Feminist, LGBTIQ+, victims’, cultural, and human rights organizations need to recognize what connects our struggles. Defending bodily autonomy, freedom of expression, and judicial independence requires sustained alliances, even among sectors that do not agree on their entire political agenda. The second challenge is to combine legal advocacy, social organizing, and public communication. We need to document decisions, track bills and budgets, use the available legal tools, and explain their consequences in accessible language. The third challenge is to support those who are most at risk. Resistance requires support, protection, and resources for local organizations and leaders. It also requires ensuring that each provocation does not dictate our priorities; we need to respond to urgent needs without abandoning our long-term work.
At Jacarandas, our position is to defend the rights we have won and to challenge any measure that seeks to roll back the rights of women and LGBTIQ+ people. This involves monitoring the government, documenting violations, and utilizing legal tools to demand effective safeguards. Our vision for defending democracy is broad: it includes protecting the independence of the judiciary, ensuring compliance with judicial decisions, and safeguarding the ability to exercise critical citizenship without fear of reprisals. Defending our rights also requires safeguarding the institutions that enable them to be realized and building alliances with other sectors committed to democracy.