‘No one should be persecuted for expressing their opinions’: Marco Rubio faces fierce backlash as deported Colombian journalist breaks his silence
Florida – Questions surrounding the deportation of Colombian journalist and activist Beto Coral have intensified after he publicly rejected the reasons reportedly given for his removal from the United States, arguing that he was targeted for exercising free speech rather than violating immigration rules.
The case has drawn international attention because it unfolded just days before the final stage of Colombia’s presidential election while also placing former Florida Senator Marco Rubio, now secretary of state, and the Trump administration under renewed scrutiny.
Coral, who was deported from the United States last week, has insisted he did nothing wrong. His removal came amid reports that U.S. officials determined his activities were inconsistent with American foreign policy interests, an allegation he firmly disputes.
Read also: Trump’s name is coming to a Florida airport—and the backlash from critics has been explosive
The controversy grew after The New York Times reported that Rubio ordered Coral’s deportation. According to the newspaper, the action followed a criminal complaint Coral filed in Florida against Colombian presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, a conservative politician reported to have close ties to the current U.S. administration. The timing of the deportation, shortly before Colombians head into a decisive phase of their presidential election between Iván Cepeda and De la Espriella, has fueled political debate in both countries.
Coral rejects allegations behind deportation
After arriving back in Colombia, Coral addressed the situation in a public statement posted on X. “Today I share this statement because I believe the truth must be known and because no one should be persecuted for expressing their opinions. Speaking is not a crime. Ideas are not imprisoned,” he wrote while sharing a longer statement in Spanish.
An official document allegedly signed by Rubio stated that Coral had used his stay in the United States to carry out political activities supporting the government of Colombian President Gustavo Petro. Petro is politically aligned with presidential candidate Iván Cepeda, who is competing against De la Espriella.
The reported document also claimed Coral’s continued presence in the United States conflicted with U.S. foreign policy interests.
Coral strongly denied those accusations. He said he has never participated in U.S. domestic politics, nor has he worked for either the Trump administration or the Colombian government. He also questioned the circumstances surrounding his detention, saying authorities never clearly explained why he was being taken into custody. “In early June, I filed a criminal complaint in Florida against candidate Abelardo de la Espriella for illegal recording of a call (…) However, I was detained by the US government without being clearly explained the reasons for my detention,” Coral said in the statement.
He also dismissed suggestions that he had any official relationship with President Petro’s administration. “I have never been an agent of the aforementioned government, nor have I been an official or contractor. I am a Colombian living in exile; I am an immigrant Colombian who thinks freely,” Coral wrote.
No soy un criminal.
Soy un colombiano que ingresó legalmente a Estados Unidos, solicitó asilo siguiendo los procedimientos establecidos y durante 11 años cumplió la ley.
Hoy comparto este comunicado porque creo que la verdad debe conocerse y porque nadie debería ser perseguido… pic.twitter.com/zYjILsFOFE
— Beto Coral (@Betocoralg) June 21, 2026
A long history in exile
Coral also used his statement to explain why he originally sought refuge in the United States.
According to him, he applied for asylum after learning the identities of individuals he believes were responsible for killing his father, Captain Humberto Coral. His father served as a senior commander during the operation that ended with the death of Medellín Cartel leader Pablo Escobar in December 1993.
Coral said that background forced him into exile, making the United States his home for years before his recent deportation.
His account has added another layer to an already politically charged case, as supporters argue he was punished for his activism while U.S. officials reportedly viewed his activities differently.
Broader questions about immigration powers
The case has also sparked discussion about the authority reportedly used to remove Coral from the country.
According to reports, this may be the first widely reported instance in which the Secretary of State has allegedly used this specific legal authority to seek the deportation of an activist because of involvement connected to a foreign election. The outlet noted that similar authority had previously been associated primarily with actions involving individuals connected to protests over Israel rather than political disputes surrounding elections abroad.
Neither Rubio nor the State Department has publicly provided a detailed response addressing Coral’s specific denials contained in his statement.
The episode arrives as immigration enforcement and foreign policy continue to be major priorities for the Trump administration. Rubio has also recently drawn attention over other international policy issues, including comments regarding Greenland’s role within NATO and separate decisions involving global vaccine funding, though those matters are unrelated to Coral’s deportation.
With Colombia’s presidential race nearing its conclusion, Coral’s removal has become part of a broader political debate stretching beyond immigration enforcement. Supporters argue his deportation raises concerns about freedom of expression and political participation, while the reported justification cited by U.S. officials frames the matter as one involving foreign policy authority.
As questions continue over the legal basis for the deportation and the circumstances surrounding Coral’s detention, the dispute is likely to remain a point of contention in both Washington and Bogotá, particularly as political leaders and observers continue examining how immigration powers intersect with international politics and free speech.
