Colombian conservative congresswoman Ángela Vergara claims to be going through hell. Last Friday, she took to social media to report that her 22-year-old son, Rafael Alonso Vergara, had been detained in the United States by immigration police (ICE) and had been “imprisoned and chained” for 18 days.

In a video posted on social media, she said: “This is a person who was awaiting his legal situation, but he had his work permit and social security. A young man who has never even committed a traffic violation but who, like many Colombians, is going through hell.”

Vergara is a member of the Conservative Party, which has openly supported the Republican Party in the United States and celebrated Donald Trump’s return to the White House. In response to criticism against her, she rejects the rumors accusing her of celebrating the deportation of Latinos or calling for military intervention by Washington in Colombia.

The representative to the Colombian House, who is usually not very visible in the national political debate, has used her social media accounts and spoken to various media outlets to provide more details about her son’s arrest: she claims that he was detained on a public road in the state of Louisiana at 4 a.m. and that, after being identified as an immigrant, he was arrested by ICE agents.

Vergara had been in the United States since 2022. A year after his arrival, he decided to apply for asylum. Since last month, right after learning of her son’s arrest, the politician says that the legal strategy has been to request voluntary return to Colombia, as she thought it would be the quickest alternative. “My son is not undocumented. My son is just another Latino who is suffering firsthand what thousands are suffering in the US. There are people like him who are not criminals,” she stressed.

Since returning to the Oval Office for his second term, Donald Trump has tightened immigration policy. He has increased funding for ICE and the Border Patrol. He has given them more autonomy and powers to carry out indiscriminate raids searching for undocumented immigrants while limiting visas and tightening agreements with other countries. In the last year, the Trump administration has deported more than 650,000 undocumented immigrants, according to estimates given by the government.

ICE and Border Patrol agents have become the nightmare of thousands of immigrants and the target of criticism for their excessive tactics. Dressed like paramilitaries, with their faces hidden by balaclavas or masks, they have been deployed in states and cities governed by Democrats, such as Minneapolis, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

They have carried out raids and surprise checks, abusing their power. Some 3,000 of these agents were deployed in Minneapolis, where they have been involved in some of the most ruthless episodes involving these forces. Barely two weeks apart, immigration agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti as they were peacefully protesting in separate demonstrations against Donald Trump’s repressive policies. The deaths of these US citizens sparked a wave of outrage across the United States.

Trump suggested that he would ease immigration pressure, but days later he returned to the fray and boasted about mass deportations. He tasked Border Czar Tom Homan with calming tensions in Minnesota. Homan announced the withdrawal of immigration police, but assured that raids against immigrants would continue.

Ángela Vergara is now calling on her government to “intervene” so that “Colombians can return to their country quickly.” In a letter addressed to Foreign Minister Rosa Yolanda Villavicencio, the congresswoman urges Gustavo Petro’s administration to speed up the coordination of humanitarian flights for repatriated Colombians with the support of the Air Force to prevent citizens from being held indefinitely in detention centers even though they have already requested voluntary departure or have no pending administrative or judicial proceedings in the United States.

Last year, as soon as Trump had landed in the White House and launched his strategy of mass deportations, President Petro decided to suspend them briefly because humanitarian conditions were not guaranteed for returning citizens. After a brief standoff, the left-wing leader decided to resume flights using civilian and military aircraft.

The drama surrounding this family has not gone unnoticed by internet users, who have complained about the congresswoman’s “hypocrisy.” Vergara, a member of the traditional Conservative Party, belongs to the so-called pro-life caucus in Congress: a group of anti-abortion senators and representatives whose views mirror several ideas also defended by the MAGA faction of the Republican Party in the US.

Following the attack on conservative activist Charlie Kirk last September, Vergara mourned his death and warned of the alleged risk to pro-life activists in the US and Colombia. “His passing represents a loss for those of us who firmly defend life, family, and freedom. May this painful event remind us of the urgency of uniting in defense of our values in the face of violence and intolerance,” she said at the time.

Following the news, several false rumors have also been published, such as that the congresswoman founded a movement called “Latinas for Trump” or that she has openly called for Washington to intervene in the country. Both accusations, for which there is no known evidence, have been rejected by the congresswoman.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Manuel Lozano Leyva, a Spanish physicist, emeritus professor and advisor to Spain’s Council of Nuclear Security, turns 77 this year and says he’s too old to be afraid of speaking his mind. Which is why he’ll bluntly tell you that “[Donald] Trump is deranged”, advocate for the return of mandatory military service and defend nuclear energy. The grandson of a carriage driver from whom Lozano Leyva inherited a love of horses (he has 66 of them on the eight-hectare farm where he lives in Dos Hermanas, in the southern province of Seville), laughingly recalls an anecdote that aptly sums up his strategy in life. During a competition for which he was riding a horse named Opinion, he was surprised when people started laughing and clapping. He soon found out the reason for the crowd’s response. The animal was well-known for balking, and was an expert in reaching the finish line dead last — if it arrived at all. But this time, the horse managed to complete the course, not coming in last for the first time in its life.

Lozano Leyva sits astride life much as he did Opinion: with a disdain for political correctness and for trends he considers wrong, as popular as they may be. He’s focused on making it to the end of what he starts, investigating and staying firm in his belief in science.

An underground activist for democracy during Franco’s regime, he participated in a coup plot shortly before the death of the dictator; Lozano Leyva portrayed this event in his Spanish-language book La rebelión de la ‘Vulcano.’ And that passion for writing — he is the author of some 15 books — along with his unshakable calling as a science communicator, have led him to his latest publication, which came out in January: El sexto elemento (The sixth element). Although the subtitle, Una biografía del carbono (A biography of carbon), might lead one to think it is a treatise on physics and chemistry, nothing could be further from the truth. He says that carbon is “the spinal column of life” and as such, he utilizes it in the search for answers to fundamental questions: our origin, our existence and our destiny.

Question. You claim that the carbon in our bodies was forged in the hearts of dying stars. Are we the dust that came from them?

Answer. Or ashes, depending on how romantic you want to get. All material comes from stars when they form. They are born, they live, they suffer, they die and they are reborn through thermonuclear reactions (fusion). After the Big Bang, some heavier elements began to be generated. But the transition from beryllium to carbon takes place under extraordinarily unique circumstances: an energy level that in the universe, can only occur inside large dying stars, in the final stages of their life. This is the miracle. From there, within the dying stars, heavier elements are formed. Carbon can take various forms, from coal to graphite to diamond. It is the skeleton of the molecules of life and an absolutely natural consequence of a specific physical circumstance. The only appropriate medium for combining into more complex molecules is mud. The Bible’s Book of Genesis recounts that man arose from clay, and that on the first day there was light, like the spontaneous generation of radiation from the Big Bang. I am not defending anything, because I am an atheist or agnostic, whatever you want to call it, but the intuition of the people who wrote these things was formidable, fantastic. The rest is all madness.

Q. In the book, you recall how Napoleon said he didn’t see God anywhere. You say you don’t either.

A. It was [Pierre-Simon] Laplace, [astronomer and one-time Minister of the Interior of France] who showed Napoleon the mathematical description of the movements of the solar system. After looking it over, Napoleon said he didn’t see any mention of God. Laplace’s response was that he had never worked under such a hypothesis.

Q. You warn that science and technology will lead us to unease, to unprecedented well-being, or to self-destruction. Where are we headed?

A. Everything that science discovers can be applied towards creation or destruction. It is we, not science, who decide. We are capable of reaching the moon or flying, but aviation can be used to make us happy by traveling the world or to develop fighter-bombers, which are based on the same laws of aerodynamics. We can fight a virus or trigger an artificial pandemic.

Q. Can it be controlled?

A. I think it’s important to lightly transform democracy and constitutions in order to train the political classes, and to avoid consequences like the ones we are seeing now. From a scientific and technological perspective, we have to return to the vanguard, as we have always done in Europe. Trump is manipulating technology and putting it in the hands of scoundrels. He is doing terrible things and altering all the laws. It’s important to merge the two parts [political and scientific] to give democracy a totally different meaning.

Q. Can Europe do that independently?

A. We have to place ourselves at the helm of the scientific and technical revolution. Europe can be independent of American digitalization. We have more than enough capacity to do that and to have a cheaper defense than the sum of what exists individually. I am among those who think that we have to go back to obligatory European military service. We must rise above national projects, unify supranational teams, and give them clear objectives. The problem is the new politician who is destroying Europe. It’s important to promote projects that truly bring us freedom and independence.

Q. In the book, you address climate change with three options: a new productive paradigm, a gradual and unstoppable increase in the use of new sources of clean energy, or a reasonable combination of the two. Is the last alternative possible?

A. The atmosphere is a highly complex system, as is the human body. Global warming is undebatable, it has been documented, but combating climate change is complicated. When it comes to energy sources, the more renewable, the better. But from my point of view, the backup for variable sources [such as solar or wind, which are intermittent] must necessarily be nuclear. Not the old kind we have now, but the new reactors that are being considered for development. What Trump wants to do with nuclear energy is delusional. He is giving millions to a bunch of kids for something that is technically all wrong. Trump is deranged. On the other hand, the modular nuclear reactors proposed by Europe are based on highly sophisticated technology. There is an alternative to uranium, thorium, which has very similar characteristics but is much better. Norway has enough thorium to maintain a fleet of nuclear reactors for between one and two centuries.

Q. And there won’t be security or waste problems?

A. The waste produced would be much less than that generated by uranium, and in terms of safety, plutonium is not in the chain. China already has a thorium reactor. I don’t know where the research is to solve our problems in Europe, to make decisions and become sovereign and independent in terms of energy.

Q. And nuclear fusion?

A. It’s ideal, but it is still a desideratum that needs further research, because it’s the future, but it’s not around the corner. What’s being done in Granada [the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility – Demo Oriented Neutron Source] is a wonderful thing, and I have completely supported it. But the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is, today, the best fusion experiment we have— and that’s just what it is, experimental. We are at a stage of fusion that will deliver the expected results in terms of stability, but its connection to the grid will be a demo. We still do not know the amount of high-energy neutrons that come out of fusion or how they interact with structural materials. We are getting into something that, as physicists say, is a new constant: the number of years left to achieve fusion is always 50.

Q. You’re not afraid of wading into any issue

A. I like to get in the middle of horse stampedes. A herd will do anything but knock you over.

Q. You say that the diamond, which is formed by crystalized carbon, represents the eternal battle between the beauty we seek and the price we pay for it.

A. The diamond has two facets: the first is its beauty, its perfection. Its dark side is that it’s associated with luxury, power and blood.

Q. You also say that not only must one not fear death, but enjoy the relation that Epicurus established between atoms and the joy of living.

A. What one must do is not think about the afterlife, or fear death. You do not fear what happened before you were born, nor is the future any of your concern. What concerns you is life. So, devote yourself to it.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Former Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos, 74, is received like a rock star wherever he goes. A couple of weeks ago, in Panama City, three bodyguards cleared a path among the dozens of people who wanted to take a selfie with him. The Bogotá-born Santos – who governed his country from 2010 to 2018 – doesn’t shy away from anyone: he stops, smiles, listens, poses. And he asks questions, a lot of questions. In January, he was invited to the International Economic Forum for Latin America and the Caribbean. The event was organized by the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (CAF), with the support of Grupo Prisa (the publisher of EL PAÍS) through the World in Progress (WIP) forum. Santos was one of the most sought-after figures at the event. Amid greetings and expressions of admiration, it became clear that, far from retiring from the international stage, Santos is still playing the game.

His interview with EL PAÍS continued days later, in Colombia’s northern Valle del Cauca. He traveled there to meet with former FARC guerrillas, who have transformed their lives after the signing of the peace agreement, which celebrates its 10th anniversary this year. Today, they cultivate, produce, and sell coffee. Santos remained tireless during the event: he spent more than seven hours straight mentally taking notes on the successes and failures of his main legacy. “Peace and coffee are my two passions,” he smiles.

Question. You seem more active than ever. After a few years of keeping a low profile, are you still eager to be part of the conversation?

Answer. I believe that former presidents shouldn’t interfere in the electoral process. They shouldn’t cling to power, although they should be willing to collaborate on matters of national interest when required. On the international stage – which has always been very important to me – I’m very concerned about what’s happening in the world. The world is on the wrong track. The risk of nuclear war is increasing, but nobody is talking about it. Furthermore, climate change, pandemics and artificial intelligence are existential risks that are being relegated to the back burner.

Q. What did you think of the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela on January 3rd? And what do you think of Trump’s plan?

A. From a military standpoint, it was an impeccable operation. I tip my hat to them. But it was an illegal operation that violated the UN Charter, international law, and set a terrible precedent. Once again, we see one of the great powers – which created this world order to prevent wars and respect the sovereignty of nations – violating its own rules. At the same time, many people are glad that Mr. [Nicolás] Maduro – [who is] responsible for war crimes, human rights violations and corruption – is no longer in power.

Q. But the regime continues.

A. People are very surprised that [Maduro] has been replaced by people who are part of the regime that committed those crimes. There’s a dichotomy. As a Colombian, as a democrat and as someone who’s interested in Venezuela recovering its democracy and freedom, what matters to me is for a clear roadmap for the transition to be defined as soon as possible. It’s surprising that, at this point, the opposition hasn’t had a chance to participate in that process, when [they were the ones] that won the 2024 elections and were recognized by the world.

Q. Many were surprised that Vice President Delcy Rodríguez got to take power. What’s your feeling about that decision?

A. It all depends on whether this accelerates the transition. But up to what point? The colectivos (armed civilian groups) keep repressing people, and not all political prisoners have been released. To what extent has [the old system] in Venezuela actually continued? Everything will depend on the speed and the way in which the transition occurs.

Q. Do you think Delcy Rodríguez is capable of leading a democratic transition?

A. What we’re seeing is that Delcy and her brother (Jorge Rodríguez, president of the National Assembly) are taking orders from Trump. He told them, “If you don’t behave, you’ll end up worse off than Maduro.” And they’re obeying. Therefore, [things don’t] depend so much on whether she’s capable or not, but rather on what Trump tells her to do.

Q. The opposition agrees on the need for a roadmap, but not on accelerating the electoral timeline.

A. Precisely for that reason, it’s crucial to define that roadmap as soon as possible. Even if the United States says it’s controlling Chavismo [the movement that has governed Venezuela since Hugo Chávez took office in 1999] Trump should bring Chavistas and the opposition to the table and agree on a peaceful transition as soon as possible.

Q. What future awaits the Chavista regime?

A. The failure of Chavismo has been resounding. The Bolivarian Revolution was a disappointment to many people. Politically, it will be greatly diminished. I don’t see Chavismo having much relevance through democratic means in the near future.

Q. What did you think of María Corina Machado giving her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump?

A. I supported the Nobel Committee when they awarded the prize to María Corina. She was brave and stood up to a dictatorship with courage. I also support the committee when it says that the Nobel Peace Prize is non-transferable.

Q. You have championed dialogue like few other leaders in the region. How do you have a dialogue on a continent where Javier Milei, Nayib Bukele and Gustavo Petro coexist?

A. Political leaders must be able to sit down with those who think differently – whether they’re left-wing or right-wing – and find common ground that benefits the region. If the president-elect of Chile sits down with the president of Colombia, ideally, they should work together instead of insulting each other. There are many things that Latin America can resolve if it acts as a region.

Q. Are you optimistic?

A. We have to put ideologies aside. In Colombia, everyone believed the peace process with the FARC was impossible… even my own family told me not to get involved. Perseverance, when you have a goal, allows you to achieve things. But it requires leadership. I hope leaders with different positions can reach an agreement and move from words to action.

Q. What kind of action?

A. A concrete opportunity would be, for example, if Latin American countries agreed to jointly produce the military equipment that they currently purchase individually. There would be enormous economies of scale and cooperation that could also translate into a more effective fight against organized crime. Why not a drone or anti-drone factory? These kinds of concrete actions are what can bring countries closer together, regardless of their ideology.

Q. How do you see the dichotomy between a hardline approach and a long-term strategy? Are you concerned about a shift toward Nayib Bukele’s approach when it comes to security?

A. It’s an approach that can be politically effective, but in the long run, it can backfire. With the FARC, it was once said that they all had to be wiped out… and that proved to be impossible. Something similar is happening with organized crime. A firm hand is needed, yes… but with rigor and [strategy]. You can’t sit down to talk without clear objectives, or simply grant political status to criminal gangs; that’s counterproductive and, moreover, prohibited by international humanitarian law. Furthermore, a comprehensive approach is required: regaining control of the territory, investing in social programs and winning over local communities. That worked with the signing of the peace agreement. We only have to remember how [the current Colombian] hotspots were in 2017; they were havens of peace. Unfortunately, subsequent governments didn’t continue it. And the situation has worsened.

Q. Has Gustavo Petro worsened what his right-wing predecessor, Iván Duque, left behind?

A. The problem isn’t the peace agreement itself, as some say, but rather the failure to implement it. Duque campaigned against the agreement and only implemented the bare minimum. Petro promised to implement it, but instead focused on his “total peace” [strategy] at the expense of the agreement with the FARC. This has aggravated the situation.

Q. It’s been 10 years since the signing of the agreement. How do you feel about it?

A. I feel great frustration because my successors didn’t understand the need to implement it, but also great pride that it’s still alive: 86% of the signatories remain committed to it, even though almost 500 have been murdered. There’s still time. The agreement continues to be [a model] recognized by the international community, as well as a solution to many of our current problems.

Q. Senator Iván Cepeda, from Petro’s left-wing coalition, is leading in the polls in Colombia. If he were president, do you think he could get the peace agreement back on track?

A. I don’t want to get involved in the [ongoing presidential campaign]. I think the quieter and less clingy the former presidents are, the better. But since you mention it, there is one issue that interests me: I hope whoever becomes president understands that, to solve many of the problems they’ll have to face, they don’t need a constitutional reform or a constituent assembly. The solutions are already contained in the peace agreement signed with the FARC, and the agreement is already in the Constitution. It’s enough to implement it.

Q. The meeting between Trump and Petro ended up going well. Were you one of the many Colombians who held their breath before the meeting?

A. Yes. After the call between Petro and Trump, the groundwork was laid in a constructive spirit to resolve a situation that benefited no one, and that led me to think [that the in-person meeting] would turn out well, as fortunately it did. Now, agreements are expected to be finalized, especially regarding collaboration in the fight against drug trafficking and criminal groups on the border, and Venezuela’s cooperation in this fight is crucial for Colombia.

Q. Can we then speak of a peace agreement or just a truce between Colombia and the United States?

A. I hope a peace agreement, because, among other things, there’s no time for it to fall apart. Petro only has a few months left in office. And I hope what has happened serves as a lesson on the importance of putting diplomacy above ideologies and personal biases. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that this will be the case, because these are two unpredictable people… like two sparks that ignite at the slightest provocation. [Petro and Trump are] political animals who don’t mind having enemies. From a political standpoint, Petro is a good enemy for Trump to have… and Trump is a good enemy for Petro to have. What I hope is that the national interests of both countries will prevail and that this truce will return us to a stable policy of cooperation and coexistence in the long term, like the one we had before.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition