On the night of April 20, Nayib Bukele proposed a “humanitarian agreement” to Nicolás Maduro via X: the repatriation of 252 Venezuelan migrants—who had been expelled from the U.S. to El Salvador—to Venezuela, in exchange for the release of 252 political prisoners. The Venezuelan regime quickly rejected the proposal. But beyond headlines and social media exchanges, a fundamental question remains: was this ever a legitimate offer?
What is unfolding between the U.S., El Salvador, and Venezuela is deeply troubling: human beings are being used as bargaining chips in political games and narratives between governments, while their most basic rights are being violated or ignored. Here are three reasons why President Bukele’s proposal is problematic.
1. The motives behind the offer are dubious and undermine the Trump administration’s narrative that Venezuelan men are “terrorists.”
While political negotiations can sometimes lead to the release of people unjustly detained, they are rarely announced on social media, which suggests this was more about optics than substance.
According to the Trump administration, 137 of the Venezuelan migrants sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador are allegedly dangerous criminals affiliated with the Tren de Aragua, a gang recently designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This designation was used as a justification to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. However, there has been no judicial oversight of the expulsions from the U.S., nor of the detentions in El Salvador. These individuals have not been brought before a judge, and neither government has provided any evidence linking them to the Tren de Aragua.
Furthermore, Bukele’s offer to release these individuals raises questions about the existence of any real evidence of criminal activity—since he is proposing to send them to Venezuela, a country with rampant impunity—where, if the allegations were true, they would almost certainly not be investigated or prosecuted. Independent media reviews of judicial records show that 90 percent of the people sent to El Salvador have no criminal record in the United States. The proposal also reveals the lack of any legal basis for holding hundreds of migrants who committed no crimes in El Salvador in a maximum-security prison.
What happened is a reflection of the many challenges the region faces amid a context of democratic backsliding where social media is used to stage political spectacle, and institutions and the language of human rights are co-opted not to uphold rights, but to control narratives. By naming specific individuals who are detained or disappeared in Venezuela, President Bukele likely did not consider how this association could put them and their families at greater risk. In this case, the “proposal” seems designed for virality rather than for any genuine humanitarian purpose.
2. The right to due process has been violated in all three countries: the U.S., El Salvador, and Venezuela.
The right to due process of the approximately 500 people that would be part of this proposed “exchange” has been violated by all the countries involved. Due process is a fundamental human right that must be guaranteed regardless of a person’s social status, including their nationality, immigration status, or political affiliation. In the case of the Venezuelan migrants detained in the CECOT maximum-security prison, both the United States and El Salvador have violated their right to due process. The same is true for those unjustly deprived of their liberty in Venezuela for political reasons.
The expelled migrants had no opportunity to appeal their removal orders, were denied judicial review of their cases, and those expelled under the 1798 law were not allowed to prove they are not affiliated with the Tren de Aragua or explain whether they have a well-founded fear of returning to Venezuela, where their life, personal safety, or freedom may be at risk. As far as is known, in El Salvador these individuals have not undergone any legal proceedings, have not had access to a lawyer, nor have they been brought before a judge—they have simply been held in isolation in a maximum-security prison.
Meanwhile, the authoritarian government in Venezuela is capitalizing on this political moment to question the authorities in El Salvador about due process guarantees for the detained migrants and requesting information about their physical integrity, all while refusing to extend the same treatment to those arbitrarily detained in Venezuela for political reasons. In the wake of the July 28, 2024 presidential election when the government rejected the results and remains in power without legitimacy, Venezuela currently holds nearly one thousand people considered political prisoners, along with dozens who have been disappeared. As part of a policy aimed at persecuting the opposition or those perceived as opponents, the Venezuelan government carries out enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, acts of torture, and cruel and inhuman treatment. Ideally, the questions that Attorney General Tarek William Saab posed to the authorities in El Salvador should also apply to the families of political prisoners in Venezuela.
3. Countries must respect international law when returning migrants seeking protection.
Finally, there is an aspect that is often overlooked when analyzing the situation of people expelled from the U.S. to El Salvador, as well as President Bukele’s proposed “exchange”: the principle of non-refoulement. No foreign national can be expelled or returned to another country—whether it is their country of origin or not—where their right to life, personal integrity, or freedom would be at risk due to their nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.Some of the Venezuelan men currently held at CECOT had already initiated asylum applications in the United States due to fear of returning to their country of origin, or they had Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Neither the U.S. nor El Salvador has assessed the risks that a Venezuelan individual may face if returned to Venezuela and perceived as an opponent or as a “traitor to the homeland” for having migrated to the U.S., a country Venezuela considers an enemy. Additionally, in some cases, U.S. courts have ruled that individuals with final orders of removal have the right to “a meaningful opportunity” to argue that being sent to their country of origin or a third country, as applicable, poses a level of danger that warrants protection.
