Trump Revives Controversial Asylum Agreement with El Salvador

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

The U.S.’ “Safe Third Country” agreements redirect asylum seekers to Central American nations despite concerns over safety and resources.
Critics argue these policies violate international standards and burden nations like El Salvador with inadequate asylum infrastructure.
Trump aims to reinstate and expand restrictive asylum policies, sparking legal challenges and debates about their humanitarian implications.

The Trump administration has been working towards establishing an asylum agreement with El Salvador 🇸🇻 that would allow the United States to deport migrants seeking asylum to the small Central American nation. Through this arrangement, referred to as a “Safe Third Country” agreement, U.S. immigration authorities would be permitted to transfer asylum seekers who pass through El Salvador while en route to the United States to seek protection in the Salvadoran asylum system. However, crucially, this agreement would not apply to citizens or residents of El Salvador 🇸🇻 itself, and its application to unaccompanied minors must remain consistent with U.S. law.

This agreement, signed by Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin K. McAleenan, is part of a broader set of deals that also include similar agreements with Guatemala 🇬🇹 and Honduras 🇭🇳. These arrangements, known collectively as Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs), allow the United States to redirect certain non-Salvadoran asylum seekers to Guatemala 🇬🇹, Honduras 🇭🇳, or El Salvador 🇸🇻 for their claims to be processed there. According to the Department of Homeland Security, all three ACAs are now fully operational, marking a new phase in U.S. asylum policy.

Trump Revives Controversial Asylum Agreement with El Salvador

The Shift in Asylum Policy

The implementation of these agreements reflects significant changes in how the United States handles asylum requests. Historically, under Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, anyone physically present in the U.S. could seek asylum if they feared persecution in their home country due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. This right, embedded in U.S. law since 1980, applies regardless of how the person entered the country. However, as of January 20, 2025, the ACAs have effectively barred most asylum seekers from accessing the U.S. asylum system if they approach the southern border.

This policy shift has prompted deep controversy. Critics argue that the agreements violate U.S. law and international standards by sending vulnerable asylum seekers to nations that may lack the resources or infrastructure to safeguard them. For instance, El Salvador 🇸🇻, like Guatemala 🇬🇹 and Honduras 🇭🇳, already faces serious challenges such as gang violence, limited public services, and high poverty rates. These factors create doubts about their ability to process claims fairly or provide adequate protection.

Criticisms of the Agreements

A report from January 2021 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democratic staff raised alarming concerns about these policies. The report, titled “Cruelty, Coercion, and Legal Contortions,” alleged that the Trump administration not only misused the safe third country framework but also applied unethical pressure to get Central American governments to sign the agreements. The report argued that these deals misuse domestic law and international asylum obligations to significantly limit the ability of migrants to seek protection in the U.S.

The concept of a “Safe Third Country” typically applies to countries that are genuinely safe for asylum seekers. For example, under an agreement between Canada 🇨🇦 and the U.S., asylum seekers may be redirected to file their claims in the country they first arrived in. However, critics contend that the Trump-era ACAs do not meet these criteria, as countries like El Salvador 🇸🇻 continue to struggle with major safety and stability issues. The report described the agreements as effectively functioning as a barrier to asylum rather than a lawful mechanism for managing claims.

Historical Context and Suspension

Initially, these agreements were not fully implemented, as the Biden administration suspended and later sought to terminate the ACAs shortly after Biden’s inauguration in 2021. According to a State Department press release, the termination process began in February 2021, but the Biden administration made immediate efforts to stop using the agreements while the notice periods specified in the deals played out. The suspension of the agreements reflected the Biden administration’s promise to restore protections for asylum seekers and move U.S. immigration policy in a more humanitarian direction.

Trump’s Second-Term Agenda

With President Trump’s potential return to office, the revival of these agreements stands at the forefront of his immigration policy. Trump’s agenda for a second term includes vastly expanding deportation efforts. He has pledged to carry out “the largest deportation in American history,” a plan he claims could target as many as 15 to 20 million individuals—far exceeding the 11 million estimated undocumented migrants in the U.S. today. His administration has also discussed reviving other policies from his first term, such as resuming the border wall’s construction, reinstating Title 42 public health restrictions, and halting refugee resettlements.

The reinstatement of the asylum agreement with El Salvador 🇸🇻 would likely serve Trump’s stated goal of deterring migration to the U.S.-Mexico border. El Salvador, under the ACAs, would become one of the key “safe third countries” designated to process asylum seekers who are intercepted at the border. However, the impact on both migrants and El Salvador 🇸🇻 itself could be severe.

Implications for Migrants and Host Countries

The asylum agreement with El Salvador 🇸🇻 raises fundamental questions about the treatment of vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution. For those asylum seekers deported to El Salvador 🇸🇻 under this agreement, there is concern that the country may lack the capacity or willingness to provide protection. El Salvador 🇸🇻 continues to struggle with widespread gang violence, corruption, and weak law enforcement structures, casting doubt on whether asylum seekers would be truly safe.

From El Salvador’s 🇸🇻 perspective, absorbing additional asylum seekers could strain its resources. The country already faces challenges related to poverty and instability, and an increase in migrants could overwhelm its asylum system, which lacks the scale and funding of those in wealthier countries. Critics view this shift as an attempt by the United States to outsource its responsibilities under international refugee law to nations with fewer resources.

Public Opinion and Political Climate

U.S. political and public attitudes toward immigration have significantly hardened since Trump’s first term. A June 2024 Gallup poll showed that 55% of Americans wanted to see immigration decrease—an attitude not seen since the early 2000s. This shift has created an environment where more restrictive immigration policies, such as the ACAs, are gaining broader support.

Within the United States, these agreements are likely to spark vigorous legal challenges. Experts warn that the policies may not only violate domestic legal protections for asylum seekers but also conflict with international obligations under the Refugee Convention. If the agreements are fully reinstated, litigation and court rulings could delay or alter how they are implemented.

The Broader Context

The asylum agreement with El Salvador 🇸🇻 is part of a trend toward outsourcing asylum responsibilities to other countries, particularly in regions of the world dealing with migration spikes. European Union countries, for example, have implemented similar strategies with agreements designed to keep asylum seekers in Turkey 🇹🇷 or North Africa. Critics globally argue that such measures undermine the international principle of refugee protection by diverting asylum seekers to less-equipped nations.

While the Trump administration claims these agreements are designed to deter fraudulent asylum claims and help process applications more efficiently, significant controversy clouds their implementation. Advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have warned that funneling asylum seekers to struggling nations will lead to greater instability and heighten risks for migrants already facing grave dangers.

Future of the Agreements

As these policies move forward, they will be closely monitored and challenged by Congress, advocacy organizations, and legal experts. Trump’s pursuit of an asylum agreement with El Salvador 🇸🇻 speaks to his broader strategy of aggressively limiting access to U.S. humanitarian protection programs. However, the measures have provoked fierce criticism, suggesting conflicts ahead.

For readers seeking additional insight into how U.S. immigration policies impact asylum seekers and legal protections, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum page provides specific details on rights and pathways for applicants. While much about the fate of these agreements remains uncertain, thorough analysis and reporting from sources such as VisaVerge.com shed light on the evolving legal and human landscape surrounding these policy shifts.

Conclusion

The asylum agreement with El Salvador 🇸🇻 and the broader Asylum Cooperative Agreements represent a major pivot in U.S. immigration efforts. This approach has sparked intense debate over its role in reducing asylum access, and long-term repercussions for both migrants and nations like El Salvador 🇸🇻 remain unclear. While the agreements align with the Trump administration’s strategy to curb migration, their ethical and legal ramifications ensure they will remain a contentious issue for years to come.

Trump renews asylum deal with El Salvador
Former President Donald Trump plans to reimplement and expand asylum agreements with El Salvador, allowing the U.S. to deport asylum seekers to the Central American country. The move is part of a wider policy shift to reduce asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Why it matters:
The agreements, known as Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs), mark a controversial approach to outsourcing asylum claims to countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Critics argue these nations lack the resources to ensure the safety of vulnerable migrants.

The big picture:
• First signed in 2019 during Trump’s presidency, ACAs allow the U.S. to deport migrants to countries they passed through en route to the U.S., bypassing the traditional asylum process.
• After being suspended by the Biden administration in 2021, these agreements are now being revived, signaling a return to harsher immigration measures.
• Trump has proposed additional policies, such as resuming border wall construction, ending temporary protections, and reinstating Title 42 expulsions.

What they’re saying:
A Senate Foreign Relations Committee report called the ACAs “unsafe,” alleging they violate U.S. and international laws by sending refugees to nations unable to protect them. Critics say the agreements distort the legal concept of “safe third countries” to bar asylum rights altogether.

By the numbers:
• Trump has pledged to carry out the “largest deportation in American history” — up to 20 million people. This figure exceeds the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
• A 2024 Gallup poll found 55% of Americans want immigration reduced, a peak sentiment not seen since 2001.

Between the lines:
El Salvador and other ACA countries may lack capacity to manage an influx of asylum seekers. Strained resources could put migrants’ safety and well-being at risk, raising ethical and legal concerns.

Yes, but:
Supporters argue the agreements will curb fraudulent claims and improve management of the U.S. immigration system. Critics counter that vulnerable populations will be exposed to danger and inadequately protected.

The bottom line:
The revival of the El Salvador asylum deal highlights a key pivot in U.S. immigration policy under Trump’s leadership. While intended to stem migration, it faces significant humanitarian, legal, and public opinion challenges likely to stir continued debate.

Learn Today

Safe Third Country: A nation asylum seekers must apply for protection in if it is deemed safe and they arrived there first.
Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs): Deals between the U.S. and certain countries to redirect asylum seekers to those nations for claim processing.
Immigration and Nationality Act (Section 208): U.S. law allowing individuals present in the U.S. to request asylum if fearing persecution.
Refugee Convention: An international treaty outlining the rights of refugees and obligations of states to provide protection.
Unaccompanied Minors: Children under 18 crossing borders without a parent/legal guardian, subject to particular legal protections under U.S. law.

This Article in a Nutshell

The U.S.-El Salvador asylum agreement redirects migrants to El Salvador’s asylum system, bypassing U.S. protections. Critics argue it outsources refugee obligations to nations facing poverty and violence, jeopardizing vulnerable lives. Advocates emphasize its ethical and legal risks, spotlighting America’s shifting immigration stance. Can safety truly exist in “Safe Third Country” policies?
— By VisaVerge.com