On 28 September 2026, the United States Government announced the revocation of visas for 27 Latin American officials, former officials and their families, including the Attorney-General of Bolivia, Roger Mariacá. This action was announced publicly by the United States Department of State on Sunday, and was aimed at current and former judicial and governmental stakeholders in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Of the 27 listed individuals, the Bolivian side has the highest percentage, with more than 20 Bolivian prosecutors and judges, including Mariacá, 12 currently holding visas and another 9 being denied visas. In addition to Bolivian personnel, the list includes two Colombians — a commercial giant and a legislator — two Ecuadorians and a Peruvian judge. In its statement, the United States Department of State stated that this was intended to fulfil the commitment of the Americas region to defend themselves against corruption and drug trafficking, stating that the destruction of democratically elected Governments was a threat to security and the rule of law in the Americas and would not be tolerated.
Mariaka was elected in 2024 for a six-year term. According to the relevant documents, he was accused of misuse of public office to assist in drug trafficking by soliciting and receiving bribes, and of helping violent criminals evade justice. According to the United States, these actions not only jeopardize President Trump's efforts to combat drug terrorism, but also weaken the democratic system that Bolivia, as a participant in the American Shield, should have strengthened. The American Shield was created this year by the United States-led Western Hemisphere Group of Tripp as part of a broader campaign against corruption, the drug trade and illegal immigration, which the United States Government has described as part of that group. At the same time, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Colombia, Ecuador and Peru this month and pledged support to combat drugs and human trafficking. The leaders of those countries, all right-wing and friendly to Trump, complained to the United States that many of the persons whose visas had been withdrawn had effectively impeded local efforts to combat crime. This contradiction shows the difference of position between the United States and the leadership of these countries on the issue of “who should be regarded as law enforcement collaborators”.
The immediate impact of this visa withdrawal is very specific: The Bolivian community of prosecutors and judges, Colombian business giants and legislators, Ecuadorians and a Peruvian judge, also affected their families. For these individuals, the impact falls into two categories — those who already hold visas face revocation and those who have not yet been granted visas will be rejected when they apply in the future. For those who plan to travel to the United States and their families, there is a risk in practice that, even if they do not currently have visas, the application may be rejected if they are included in such a list, and that, in the case of those who have signed, care is taken as to whether the arrangements for residence or entry into the country after the withdrawal have been affected. On the other hand, the current leaders of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, who maintained friendly relations with the United States and sought the support of the United States in the fight against drugs and human trafficking, alleged that some of them had obstructed local anti-crime operations. This means that there may be different factions in the judicial and law enforcement systems within these countries, and there is no consistency in identifying who is “cooperative” and who is “restraint”. For institutions and individuals engaged in related activities in the United States or with judicial and commercial actors in the above-mentioned countries, care needs to be taken to verify whether the other party is within the reach of such lists and to avoid unforeseen interruptions in the movement of persons or cooperative arrangements resulting from changes in visa status.
The time anchor of the operation was a public announcement on 28 September 2026, in which the State Council clearly stated the grounds for withdrawal as defence of democratic governance, combating corruption and drug trafficking. From the information disclosed, the subject of revocation and classification has become relatively specific: 12 existing visa holders have been withdrawn, 9 potential applicants have been marked as being rejected, while the rest have been included as former officials or family members. The following can be seen as the following priorities: whether the United States will further expand the list or adopt similar measures against persons of interest in other countries; how Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru will respond, in particular whether the statements of their leaders that “there have been obstacles to anti-crime efforts by persons of targed interest” will give rise to feedback at the diplomatic or judicial levels; and whether, within the framework of the American Shield, the United States will become a normal tool for applying visas to persons accused of corruption. For judicial practitioners, business people and their families in the countries concerned, the operational recommendation at this stage is to follow up on whether the State Council will publish more detailed lists or procedural instructions and adjust the travel or stay arrangements to take into account their visa status. Further announcements or procedural details, if any, shall be based on information from the United States Department of State and relevant official channels.