Analysis Summary:

The article's factual accuracy is mixed. The claim about the Trump administration cutting aid to Colombia is plausible, but not directly verifiable with the provided sources. The assertion that this cut led to worsening violence is an interpretation that leans towards a specific narrative, indicating moderate bias.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim 1:** "The Trump administration cut off aid to Colombia..." This claim is not directly verifiable by the provided sources. The sources discuss US foreign policy in general terms (Verification Source #3, #4), but do not specifically mention aid to Colombia or the Trump administration's actions.
• Claim 2:** "...that has been vital to keeping the promises of a peace deal with a major rebel group..." This claim is an interpretation. While aid could be vital, the provided sources do not confirm this specific impact in Colombia. Verification Source #5 mentions peace-support operations, but not in the context of Colombia or US aid.
• Claim 3:** "...as violence worsens in many corners of the country." This is a factual claim that requires specific data on violence in Colombia, which is not provided in the verification sources. Therefore, it cannot be verified.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• The provided sources do not offer direct support or contradiction for the specific claims made in the article snippet.
• Verification Source #3 discusses rethinking US policy in Africa, which is relevant to the general topic of US foreign policy, but not specific to Colombia.
• Verification Source #4 mentions increasing support to other nations, which could be interpreted as contrasting with the claim of cutting aid, but it's not a direct contradiction as it doesn't specify Colombia.
• Verification Source #5 mentions peace-support operations, indicating that the US is involved in such activities globally, but it doesn't confirm or deny the impact of aid cuts in Colombia.