I come to tell Colombians they have a courageous woman
In the shadow of a colleague's unsolved assassination, Colombian presidential candidate Paloma Valencia has declared that a FARC dissident cell has placed a bounty on her life — a claim the government of President Gustavo Petro swiftly and publicly dismissed as a misreading of intelligence, if not an act of political theater. The dispute, unfolding weeks before the May 31 election, is not merely about one candidate's safety; it is a collision between two visions of how a nation makes peace with its own violence. Whether the threat is real or constructed, the fear it names is not.
- Valencia named a specific armed group, a specific assassin, and a specific price — $560,000 — lending her accusation an unusual concreteness that demanded a response.
- President Petro and his Defense Minister responded within hours, publicly contradicting her account and framing the alleged plot as a criminal debt dispute with no actual threat behind it.
- The tension is sharpened by memory: Valencia's own party lost Senator Miguel Uribe Turbay, shot twice in the head at a campaign rally in 2024 and dead two months later — a precedent that makes dismissal politically costly.
- Valencia seized the moment to indict Petro's 'total peace' policy, arguing that negotiating with armed groups has enriched criminals while leaving ordinary Colombians exposed.
- With threats also reported by candidates on the far right and the left, the election is taking shape under a cloud of insecurity — and the line between genuine danger and campaign strategy grows harder to locate.
On Monday, Colombian presidential candidate Paloma Valencia told reporters that the Frente 42 — a dissident FARC faction — had contracted a man known as Buchetula to kill her, paying roughly $560,000 for the job. She said she had received this information directly from senior defense and security officials, including the defense minister and national police director.
The government moved quickly to undercut her. President Petro posted on social media that Valencia had distorted what intelligence officials communicated to her, characterizing the supposed plot as nothing more than a dispute between criminals — a debtor accusing a creditor, with no actual assassination plan in existence. Defense Minister Pedro Sánchez Suárez confirmed that intelligence had ruled out any credible threat, and said this conclusion had already been shared with her campaign, even as he affirmed that security forces continued protecting all candidates.
Valencia's warning carried an unavoidable historical weight. Her party colleague Senator Miguel Uribe Turbay had been shot twice in the head at a Bogotá campaign rally in June of the previous year and died from his wounds two months later. She invoked his death not to seek sympathy, she said, but to present herself as a leader willing to confront the violence that claimed him.
The episode quickly merged with the campaign's central ideological fault line. Valencia used the platform to attack Petro's 'total peace' initiative — his policy of negotiating with armed groups rather than pursuing military confrontation — arguing it had delivered enormous benefits to criminals at the expense of ordinary citizens, and accusing the government of complicity with narco-terrorism.
Threats against candidates have become a recurring feature of this election cycle, with figures across the political spectrum reporting warnings. But none had been stated as precisely as Valencia's — with a named group, a named operative, and a named sum. Whether her account reflects genuine intelligence or calculated political messaging may not be resolved before Colombians vote on May 31.
Paloma Valencia stood before reporters on Monday with a stark claim: a narco-terrorist cell had put a price on her head. The right-wing presidential candidate, running third in the polls for Colombia's May 31 election, said she had been briefed by the defense minister, interior minister, and national police director that the Frente 42—a dissident faction of the FARC—had ordered her assassination. According to Valencia, a man known by the alias Buchetula had been paid 2 billion pesos, roughly $560,000, to kill her.
Within hours, the government moved to discredit her. President Gustavo Petro posted on X that Valencia had misrepresented what intelligence officials told her. The threat, he suggested, was not real at all. Instead, Petro framed it as a dispute between criminals—one debtor accusing his creditor of plotting against him without any actual plan existing. Defense Minister Pedro Sánchez Suárez reinforced the message, stating that intelligence work had ruled out any credible threat to Valencia from either the Frente 42 or the individual she named. He added that this conclusion had already been communicated to her campaign team, though he emphasized that security forces remained actively protecting all presidential candidates.
Valencia's claim carried particular weight because of what happened to a colleague in her own party. Senator Miguel Uribe Turbay, who had also been running for president, was shot twice in the head at a political rally in the Modelia neighborhood of Bogotá on June 7 of the previous year. He died two months later from his wounds. That assassination was not disputed; it was fact. Valencia invoked it directly, saying she was not coming before the public to complain or seek sympathy, but to tell Colombians they had a courageous woman willing to lead the fight for security so the country could live without fear.
But Valencia also used the moment to attack Petro's signature policy. She criticized his "total peace" initiative, which aims to negotiate with armed groups rather than pursue military solutions. She argued the policy had been enormously beneficial to criminals while proving costly to ordinary Colombians, and she accused the government of complicity with narco-terrorism. The dispute over the assassination threat thus became inseparable from the broader ideological battle shaping the campaign.
Threat reports against candidates have surfaced before in this election cycle. Both the far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella and the leftist Iván Cepeda have reported receiving threats, as has Valencia herself on previous occasions. But none had been articulated as concretely as the claim she made on Monday—with a named group, a named individual, and a specific dollar amount. Yet the government's swift and public denial suggested officials believed the claim lacked credibility, even as they maintained that security measures for all candidates remained in place. The question of whether Valencia's warning reflected genuine intelligence or political theater would likely remain contested until the election itself.
Notable Quotes
I have been informed by the defense minister, interior minister, and national police director that a narco-terrorist group has put a price on my head again.— Paloma Valencia
The candidate did not report what intelligence officials actually told her. The alleged attack was not real, but rather a dispute between criminals.— President Gustavo Petro
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a candidate make such a specific claim if the government was going to immediately deny it?
Because the denial itself becomes part of the message. Valencia gets to say the government is downplaying a real threat, which feeds her larger argument that Petro's policies have emboldened criminals.
But doesn't a public contradiction damage her credibility?
It might, or it might not. In a polarized election, her supporters may believe her over the president, and her opponents already didn't trust her anyway. The real audience is the undecided middle.
What about the timing—why announce this just days before the election?
Maximum visibility. She's running third in the polls. A security crisis, even a disputed one, keeps her in the conversation and reinforces her core message: only she can restore order.
The government says it's just criminals fighting over debts. Is that plausible?
Entirely plausible. Criminal organizations do make false accusations against each other. But the government's denial is also politically convenient—acknowledging a real threat would undermine Petro's claim that his policies are working.
What does the Uribe assassination tell us?
That threats against candidates in Colombia are not theoretical. That one actually happened. Which is why Valencia's claim lands hard, regardless of whether this particular one is real.