The recent White House visit of El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has ignited fierce debate over the ethical and legal implications of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategies. Central to this controversy is a bilateral agreement that positions El Salvador as a detention hub for migrants deported from the United States, including third-country nationals accused of gang affiliations. Critics argue this partnership undermines due process, legitimizes authoritarian governance, and violates international human rights standards. By examining the geopolitical calculus, legal overreach, and humanitarian consequences of this alliance, this report exposes the destabilizing effects of outsourcing immigration enforcement to a regime accused of systemic abuses.
The Strategic Context of U.S.-El Salvador Relations
Historical Foundations of Migration Policy
U.S. involvement in Central America has long influenced migration patterns, with Cold War-era interventions in El Salvador exacerbating instability and violence. The 1980s civil war, fueled by U.S. support for right-wing governments, displaced over a million Salvadorans, many of whom sought refuge in the United States2. Decades later, gang violence—partially rooted in the deportation of U.S.-trained gang members to El Salvador in the 1990s—has driven further migration northward5. This cyclical relationship underscores the structural factors behind modern migration crises, which the Trump administration has sought to address through punitive measures rather than systemic reform25.
Bukele’s Authoritarian Turn and U.S. Appeasement
Since taking office in 2019, Bukele has consolidated power through unconstitutional means, including replacing Supreme Court justices to enable his reelection and declaring a perpetual “state of exception” suspending civil liberties5. His government has imprisoned over 75,000 Salvadorans without due process, often based on arbitrary criteria like tattoos or socioeconomic status15. Despite these abuses, the Trump administration has embraced Bukele as a strategic partner, leveraging his willingness to accept deportees in exchange for political and financial concessions4. This alignment reflects a broader preference for transactional relationships over democratic accountability in U.S. foreign policy45.
The Deportation Agreement: Mechanics and Motivations
Legal and Operational Framework
The U.S.-El Salvador agreement, negotiated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, allows the U.S. to deport individuals labeled as “dangerous criminals” to Salvadoran prisons, regardless of their nationality or legal status in the U.S.3. This includes migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, and other nations that resist accepting deportees, effectively making El Salvador a “third-country” detention site34. The Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a archaic wartime statute—to justify these transfers, bypassing modern legal safeguards14.
Political Benefits for Bukele
For Bukele, the deal provides international legitimacy and financial incentives. El Salvador receives payment for each detainee, though the exact terms remain undisclosed4. Additionally, the agreement bolsters Bukele’s domestic narrative of restoring order, as he parades deported gang members in staged media spectacles5. His alignment with Trump has also endeared him to the U.S. far right, with appearances at CPAC and endorsements from figures like Matt Gaetz4.
Trump’s Immigration Agenda
The partnership advances Trump’s stated goal of executing the “largest mass deportation operation in American history”2. By outsourcing detention, the administration circumvents legal challenges to domestic immigration policies, such as prolonged detention without trial or family separation25. This approach mirrors Bukele’s “state of exception,” prioritizing security over civil liberties and normalizing extrajudicial measures5.
Human Rights Violations and Ethical Concerns
Conditions in Salvadoran Prisons
The CECOT “mega-prison,” where many deportees are held, has been condemned for overcrowding, torture, and denial of medical care15. Detainees face indefinite confinement without access to legal representation or evidentiary review, violating the principle of non-refoulement under international law1. Reports indicate that U.S. deportees are subjected to forced labor and violent interrogations aimed at extracting confessions5.
Erosion of Due Process
The Trump administration’s use of gang allegations to justify deportations relies on unverified intelligence, often derived from racial profiling or unreliable databases24. For example, over 238 individuals sent to CECOT were accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang without being charged or tried in the U.S.1. This lack of transparency deprives migrants of the right to contest their removal, effectively rendering them stateless13.
Complicity in Authoritarianism
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International argue that the U.S. is legitimizing Bukele’s authoritarian regime by outsourcing detention15. The White House’s praise for Bukele’s “tough-on-crime” policies ignores his dismantling of judicial independence and suppression of dissent, setting a dangerous precedent for U.S. alliances45.
Legal and Diplomatic Repercussions
Violations of International Law
The deportation agreement contravenes multiple international treaties, including the UN Convention Against Torture, which prohibits transferring individuals to countries where they risk persecution15. Legal scholars warn that the U.S. could face charges at the International Court of Justice for complicity in human rights abuses1. Domestically, the ACLU has pledged to challenge the policy as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Fifth Amendment rights2.
Impact on Regional Stability
El Salvador’s role as a detention hub risks destabilizing Central America by concentrating gang members in overcrowded prisons, potentially strengthening transnational criminal networks35. Neighboring countries, including Honduras and Guatemala, have criticized the agreement as a unilateral imposition that exacerbates regional security challenges3.
The Humanitarian Cost
Migrant Testimonies and Family Separation
Interviews with deported individuals reveal systemic abuse, including beatings, extortion, and denial of contact with families15. One Venezuelan national, deported to CECOT in March 2025, reported being shackled for 23 hours daily and deprived of meals for refusing to confess to gang membership5. Such practices echo the Trump administration’s family separation policy, which the ACLU previously blocked but now risks reviving under expanded deportation powers2.
Long-Term Psychological Trauma
Psychologists note that indefinite detention in harsh conditions leads to lasting mental health crises, including PTSD and depression5. Children of deportees face economic hardship and vulnerability to exploitation, perpetuating cycles of migration and violence2.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent
The Bukele-Trump deportation pact exemplifies the convergence of authoritarian governance and nativist immigration policies. By subcontracting detention to a regime with a documented history of human rights abuses, the U.S. undermines its moral authority and international legal obligations. This strategy not only fails to address the root causes of migration but also entrenches systems of oppression that fuel displacement. Moving forward, civil society groups and legislative bodies must demand transparency, accountability, and a return to rights-based approaches in immigration policy. The cost of silence is measured in shattered lives and the erosion of democratic norms, a price too steep for any nation to bear.
