Gasoline and diesel prices in Colombia are set to increase starting April 1, according to official announcements from the Energy and Gas Regulatory Commission (CREG) and the national government. Both opposition and government-aligned coverage agree that the hike affects regular gasoline and ACPM (diesel), with an average rise of roughly 370–380 pesos per gallon for gasoline and around 80 pesos per gallon for diesel in major cities. They also concur that the national average price of regular gasoline will move to about 15,449 pesos per gallon, with significant variation by region, and that cities like Villavicencio, Cali, and Bogotá will face the highest prices, while Cúcuta and Pasto remain among the lowest. April 1 thus marks the end of a short period of price stability or slight decreases, and media on both sides describe the measure as nationally applied but city-specific in its exact impact.

Coverage from both camps also notes that the CREG and the national government frame the adjustment within the existing regulated fuel pricing system, which incorporates international oil benchmarks, domestic taxes, and logistics and transport costs. Both sides acknowledge that international market dynamics, including recent tension and speculation in the Middle East affecting global oil prices, are cited as key external drivers, alongside domestic criteria like stabilization fund balances and the government’s broader fiscal needs. They likewise agree that structural features of Colombia’s pricing formula, such as differentiated regional transport and distribution components, explain why an oil-producing region like Villavicencio can still end up with the highest pump prices, and that the announced changes fit into a longer-term effort to align domestic fuel prices more closely with global conditions.

Areas of disagreement

Responsibility and blame. Opposition-aligned sources tend to highlight the government and President Petro as directly responsible for the price hikes, portraying the decision as a deliberate policy choice that burdens consumers and truckers. Government-aligned outlets, in contrast, emphasize the technical role of CREG and the fuel pricing formula, stressing that increases stem largely from international oil trends and the need to maintain fiscal and market stability. While opposition coverage frames the measure as avoidable and politically motivated, government-friendly coverage presents it as a constrained response to external pressures and inherited structural distortions.

Social and economic impact. Opposition media usually foreground the negative impact on household budgets, transport costs, and food prices, amplifying testimonies from drivers, businesses, and local leaders who say the hike is unsustainable. Government-aligned outlets acknowledge economic discomfort but contextualize the rise as moderate in peso terms, often noting that previous months saw a pause or smaller adjustments. Whereas opposition narratives warn of inflationary spirals and intensified regional inequality, government-aligned coverage tends to downplay worst-case scenarios and stress that the adjustment is calibrated to avoid severe macroeconomic shocks.

Justification and narrative framing. Opposition sources often question the official justifications, casting doubt on references to Middle East tensions and global markets and arguing that the state oil company and tax policy could be used to cushion prices more. Government-aligned sources repeat in detail the government’s explanation that the fuel stabilization fund, international reference prices, and logistics costs leave limited room to maneuver, and they frame the hike as part of a necessary correction after years of underpricing fuels. While critics present the measure as evidence of broken campaign promises and disregard for social welfare, supportive media frame it as a responsible step within a broader reform path toward fiscal discipline and energy transition.

Regional inequities. Opposition outlets tend to underscore the perceived injustice that oil-producing or agricultural regions such as Villavicencio pay the highest gasoline prices, treating this as proof of a poorly designed or politically biased pricing regime. Government-aligned coverage acknowledges public discontent in those areas but attributes regional disparities mainly to transparent components like transport, distribution, and taxes embedded in the national formula. In opposition narratives, territorial inequity is a political failure that the current administration should urgently correct, whereas in government-aligned narratives it is an inherited structural outcome that can only be gradually addressed alongside larger infrastructure and regulatory reforms.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to depict the April 1 fuel price increase as a politically driven and socially harmful decision for which the current government bears primary responsibility, while government-aligned coverage tends to present it as a technically grounded, externally constrained adjustment within a long-term effort to correct structural distortions and protect macroeconomic stability.