In a bold diplomatic maneuver, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has proposed a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, offering to repatriate 252 Venezuelans deported from the United States and detained in El Salvador in return for the release of an equivalent number of individuals he identifies as “political prisoners” held by the Venezuelan government. This proposal, articulated via social media on April 20, 2025, underscores the complex interplay of migration policies, human rights concerns, and geopolitical posturing in Latin America. The swap would involve high-profile detainees, including family members of opposition leaders, journalists, activists, and foreign nationals, and has sparked sharp reactions from Venezuelan authorities, who dismissed the offer as “cynical” while demanding proof of the detainees’ legal status146. The initiative emerges against the backdrop of El Salvador’s controversial cooperation with the Trump administration’s deportation policies, which have drawn international condemnation for their lack of due process and allegations of human rights violations27. As both nations grapple with domestic and international pressures, this proposal raises critical questions about the legitimacy of cross-border detention practices, the weaponization of migration, and the broader implications for regional stability.
The Structure and Scope of the Proposed Exchange
Composition of the Prisoner Groups
President Bukele’s proposal specifies a one-to-one exchange of 252 individuals. On the Salvadoran side, the group comprises Venezuelan nationals deported from the U.S. under the Trump administration’s intensified immigration enforcement measures. These deportees were accused of affiliations with criminal organizations such as Tren de Aragua and MS-13, though evidence supporting these claims remains scant457. Notably, the detained Venezuelans include individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a U.S. citizen erroneously deported to El Salvador, whose case has become a focal point for legal challenges and humanitarian appeals12.
In exchange, Bukele has demanded the release of 252 Venezuelan “political prisoners,” a term he applies to individuals detained during President Nicolás Maduro’s crackdown on dissent following the 2024 electoral period. This group includes relatives of opposition figures such as Edmundo González (a former presidential candidate), journalists like Roland Carreño, human rights lawyers such as Rocío San Miguel, and Corina Parisca de Machado—mother of opposition leader María Corina Machado, who has faced sustained harassment from Venezuelan authorities145. Additionally, Bukele referenced nearly 50 foreign nationals from countries including the U.S., Germany, and France, whom he claims are unjustly imprisoned in Venezuela46.
Legal and Humanitarian Frameworks
The proposal frames the exchange as a “humanitarian agreement,” yet it conspicuously avoids addressing the legal status of the detainees on both sides. Bukele asserts that the Venezuelans held in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) are “part of an operation against gangs,” while characterizing Maduro’s prisoners as victims of political persecution15. However, the Venezuelan government maintains that it holds no political prisoners, insisting that all incarcerations are based on criminal charges46. Independent organizations like Foro Penal contradict this, documenting over 800 political detainees in Venezuela as of March 2025, including 68 foreign nationals6.
The lack of transparency in El Salvador’s judicial process further complicates the proposal. Families and legal advocates for the deported Venezuelans argue that many detainees lack meaningful access to legal representation and have been subjected to prolonged detention without trial27. Similarly, Maduro’s administration has been criticized by the United Nations for systematic human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests and torture of political opponents6.
International Reactions and Diplomatic Tensions
Venezuela’s Rejection and Counter-Demands
Venezuela’s response to Bukele’s proposal has been unequivocally negative. The Office of the Prosecutor General, led by Tarek William Saab, dismissed the offer as “cynical” and accused Bukele of “neofascist” rhetoric, demanding that El Salvador provide a detailed list of the detained Venezuelans, including their legal statuses and medical conditions16. Maduro himself has previously condemned the deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador as a “kidnapping,” denying any criminal ties among the deportees and framing the issue as a violation of national sovereignty56.
Notably, Venezuela’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of political prisoners aligns with its longstanding narrative that dissenters are prosecuted solely for criminal activities. This stance has been repeatedly challenged by international bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council, which documented cases of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings targeting opposition figures in 20246.
U.S. Involvement and Strategic Interests
The Trump administration’s role in facilitating the deportations to El Salvador has added a layer of complexity to the proposal. Since March 2025, the U.S. has deported over 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador under agreements that include a $6 million payment to the Bukele government for housing detainees in the CECOT facility45. These deportations, often justified by alleged gang affiliations, have faced legal challenges in U.S. courts. In April 2025, the Supreme Court temporarily halted further deportations following an emergency petition by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued that the policy violated migrants’ rights to due process47.
The U.S. State Department has cautiously endorsed Bukele’s proposal, with a senior official praising it as a “creative approach to resolving humanitarian crises”3. However, this stance has drawn criticism from human rights groups, who argue that the U.S. is complicit in El Salvador’s detainment practices, which they describe as abusive and extralegal27.
Contextualizing El Salvador’s Migration Policies
Bukele’s Anti-Gang Campaign and Its International Ramifications
Bukele’s willingness to detain deportees in the CECOT “mega-prison” is consistent with his domestic agenda, which has prioritized a draconian crackdown on gang violence. Since 2022, his government has suspended constitutional rights, authorized mass arrests, and constructed sprawling detention facilities to incarcerate over 70,000 alleged gang members57. While these measures have reduced homicide rates and bolstered Bukele’s popularity domestically, they have also drawn condemnation from international human rights organizations for their disregard for due process and widespread reports of torture57.
The cooperation with U.S. deportation policies reflects Bukele’s strategic alignment with the Trump administration, which has sought to externalize migration enforcement to third countries. Critics argue that this partnership transforms El Salvador into a “warehouse” for migrants the U.S. wishes to exclude, exacerbating human rights violations while allowing both governments to evade accountability17.
Regional Migration Dynamics and the Role of Tren de Aragua
Central to the deportation rationale is the alleged connection between Venezuelan migrants and Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal organization originating in Venezuela. U.S. and Salvadoran authorities claim the deported individuals are linked to the gang, but evidence remains anecdotal, often relying on unverified intelligence reports45. Tren de Aragua’s expansion into countries like Chile and Colombia has made it a convenient scapegoat for migration-related fears, though experts caution against conflating migration with criminality57.
Venezuelan officials and migrant advocates vehemently deny these associations, arguing that the deportees are economic migrants fleeing the country’s protracted crisis. Over 7 million Venezuelans have fled since 2015, with many undertaking perilous journeys through Central America to reach the U.S.67. The conflation of this diaspora with gang activity, they argue, perpetuates harmful stereotypes and justifies punitive policies45.
Human Rights and Ethical Considerations
Conditions in Detention Facilities
Reports from the CECOT facility describe overcrowded cells, inadequate medical care, and systemic abuse. Detainees, including those erroneously deported like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, have reported being held incommunicado for weeks, with limited access to legal counsel or consular services124. Similar concerns persist in Venezuelan prisons, where political detainees face torture, forced confessions, and denial of medical treatment, according to Foro Penal and Human Rights Watch6.
El Salvador’s Archbishop José Luis Escobar Alas has emerged as a vocal critic of Bukele’s policies, warning against transforming the country into an “international prison” and calling for adherence to international human rights standards127. These appeals highlight the moral ambiguities of the proposed exchange, which risks legitimizing the detention of vulnerable populations as bargaining chips in geopolitical disputes.
The Legality of Prisoner Swaps Under International Law
Prisoner exchanges, while not explicitly prohibited under international law, occupy a legal gray area when conducted without judicial oversight. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has emphasized that such agreements must prioritize the voluntary repatriation of individuals and ensure compliance with non-refoulement principles, which prohibit returning migrants to countries where they face persecution67. Bukele’s proposal, however, appears to conflate deportation with extrajudicial detention, raising concerns about coercion and the absence of transparent legal frameworks14.
Legal scholars note that the exchange could set a dangerous precedent, incentivizing governments to detain migrants as leverage in diplomatic negotiations. This tactic mirrors strategies employed by authoritarian regimes, such as Iran’s use of dual nationals as political hostages, and risks eroding norms around the protection of migrant rights67.
Political Motivations and Strategic Calculations
Bukele’s Domestic and International Agenda
Bukele’s proposal aligns with his broader strategy of positioning himself as a regional leader unafraid to challenge traditional power structures. By confronting Maduro—a figure widely criticized in the West—Bukele burnishes his credentials as a pragmatic anti-authoritarian, even as his own governance model faces accusations of democratic backsliding57. The proposal also diverts attention from mounting criticism of his human rights record, reframing El Salvador as a mediator in regional conflicts rather than a perpetrator of abuses15.
Domestically, the initiative reinforces Bukele’s image as a decisive leader capable of innovative solutions. With approval ratings exceeding 80%, his ability to leverage international disputes for domestic gain underscores the populist playbook that has fueled his rise57.
Maduro’s Vulnerabilities and Leverage Points
For Maduro, the proposal presents both risks and opportunities. Rejecting it outright could exacerbate Venezuela’s isolation, particularly if Bukele succeeds in framing the exchange as a humanitarian gesture. Conversely, acquiescing would undermine Maduro’s narrative that Venezuela holds no political prisoners, while potentially freeing individuals who could reinvigorate opposition movements67.
Maduro’s insistence on proof of the detainees’ status reflects his government’s reliance on bureaucratic obstruction to delay concessions. By demanding detailed documentation, Venezuelan authorities may seek to prolong negotiations, thereby avoiding immediate political fallout16.
Conclusion: A Crossroads for Migration Governance
President Bukele’s prisoner swap proposal epitomizes the escalating tensions between migration control and human rights in an era of rising authoritarianism. While framed as a humanitarian initiative, the exchange risks normalizing the detention of migrants as political capital and diverting attention from systemic abuses in both El Salvador and Venezuela. The international community, particularly the United States and regional bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS), faces a critical test in balancing diplomatic pragmatism with the defense of universal rights.
Moving forward, any resolution must prioritize transparent judicial processes, independent monitoring of detention conditions, and a commitment to addressing the root causes of migration—including gang violence, political repression, and economic collapse. Without such measures, proposals like Bukele’s will remain symbolic gestures, perpetuating cycles of exploitation and impunity.
