U.S. Payment to El Salvador for Imprisonment Raises Legal Concerns
Trump Administration’s $6 Million Deal with El Salvador Faces Scrutiny Over Constitutionality and Taxpayer Fund Misuse
The recent U.S. agreement to pay El Salvador $6 million to detain alleged gang members in a Salvadoran mega-prison has sparked debate over the legality of using taxpayer funds for such purposes. Legal scholars and human rights experts argue that the arrangement may violate U.S. law and constitutional protections, citing a lack of statutory authority and potential breaches of due process.
The deal, part of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, involves deporting individuals, with President Trump even speculating some U.S. citizens, to El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a 40,000-capacity facility known for its harsh conditions. The administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deportations, but critics contend that paying a foreign nation to imprison people lacks legal grounding.
Legal experts point to several issues. The U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” and reports from Human Rights Watch in March 2025 detail mistreatment at CECOT, including lack of visitation, education, and recreation. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from being forcibly removed from the country without voluntarily surrendering citizenship.
Bruce Fein, a constitutional law expert, told Al Jazeera, “It would be unconstitutional to remove U.S. citizens to a foreign country for imprisonment”. He warned that such actions could evade judicial oversight, referencing the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man deported to CECOT despite a court-ordered protection against removal.
MIGRANT INSIDER IS SPONSORED BY
The Supreme Court addressed Abrego García’s case in April 2025, unanimously ruling 9-0 that the Trump administration must facilitate his return to the U.S. The unsigned order emphasized that his deportation violated a 2019 immigration judge’s “withholding of removal” protection. While the ruling did not directly address the $6 million payment, it underscored the illegality of deporting protected individuals.
No specific U.S. statute explicitly authorizes or prohibits paying a foreign country to imprison individuals. However, the absence of such authority is central to critics’ arguments. David Bier of the Cato Institute told NPR, “It’s obviously unconstitutional, obviously illegal. There’s no authority in any U.S. law to deport U.S. citizens and certainly not to imprison them in a foreign country”.
The use of taxpayer funds for this purpose also raises questions about compliance with federal appropriations law. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) outlines that agencies may only spend funds for purposes explicitly authorized by Congress. Without a clear statutory basis, the payment to El Salvador could violate the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits unauthorized expenditures.
The U.S. government’s payment to El Salvador to detain individuals in CECOT likely violates international human rights law, given the documented abuses in that facility.
The Department of Homeland Security defends the arrangement, with Secretary Kristi Noem describing CECOT as “one of the tools in our toolkit”. However, the lack of transparency about the agreement’s details fuels skepticism.
As legal challenges mount, the administration faces scrutiny over whether it can continue funding foreign imprisonment without congressional approval or judicial oversight. The Abrego García ruling suggests courts may intervene to protect U.S. citizens and legal residents, but the broader question of taxpayer-funded foreign detention remains unresolved.
Migrant Insider is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.