The scale of the breach is substantial. Forensic investigators determined that unauthorized actors accessed Idarraga’s device more than 8,700 times, downloading 2.3 gigabytes of data that included classified corruption complaints. On 124 separate occasions, the spyware illegally activated the phone’s camera and microphone. Idarraga stated that the operation was ordered from within the Ministry of Defense, utilizing confidential funds and state counterintelligence structures drawn from the Army. He described the espionage as a method to persecute those conducting investigations, noting that a smear campaign was mounted against him due to the sensitive information he had been receiving regarding corruption at various levels of the military.
“They were mounting a smear campaign against me because of the information I had been receiving about various cases of corruption (of all levels and types) within the military,” said Idarraga.
This disclosure marks the second high-level allegation of Pegasus usage within the Colombian cabinet. In December, Interior Minister Armando Benedetti announced that private investigators had found the same Israeli-made spyware planted on his phone. The pattern of surveillance coincides with a period of intense scrutiny on Colombia’s intelligence services. In November, an investigation revealed that an army general and a senior intelligence official had shared sensitive information with a guerrilla leader. General Juan Manuel Huertas and National Intelligence Directorate official Wilmar Mejia were suspended following these revelations, which were based on intelligence gleaned from devices seized in July 2024 from a rebel leader known as Calarca.
The current scandal underscores a persistent struggle between Colombia’s military institutions and civilian oversight. While the 2016 peace deal with the FARC formally ended five decades of civil war that claimed 260,000 lives, the military’s relationship with domestic security remains fraught. The country has a history of unauthorized surveillance; in 2011, the entire national intelligence agency, the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), was dismantled after it was discovered that it had wiretapped reporters, opposition politicians, and human rights defenders.
Recent disclosures have also highlighted the targeting of journalists by the military. An investigation found that the Colombian army gathered intelligence on more than 130 journalists, including at least three US reporters: Nicholas Casey of the New York Times, Juan Forero of the Wall Street Journal, and John Otis of NPR. Soldiers compiled detailed profiles of these individuals, logging their social media activity, political leanings, and personal contacts in a database. This practice has drawn criticism from media figures who argue that the armed forces have not fully adapted to a post-conflict democratic environment, where journalists and opposition members are protected rather than targeted.
Defense Minister Pedro Sanchez responded to Idarraga’s allegations by stating that his ministry would support criminal investigations into the alleged spy scandal implicating military intelligence. The political ramifications extend beyond the immediate investigation; the scandal arrives amid broader social unrest, with recent demonstrations against police brutality resulting in the deaths of thirteen civilians and assaults on three reporters. The police force, which is overseen by the defense ministry, is thus at the heart of both the civil protest and the military intelligence controversy.
For households and workers in the media and legal sectors, the implications are a tangible erosion of professional safety. The use of state resources to monitor critics and investigators creates a chilling effect on accountability. As the judicial process moves forward, the focus shifts to whether the criminal investigations will result in meaningful sanctions against the officials involved and whether structural reforms can prevent the recurrence of such deep-state surveillance. The next critical step lies in the findings of the criminal probes, which will determine the extent of the military’s involvement in targeting its own government’s watchdogs.
