Venezuela frees 10 Americans in swap for deported migrants in El Salvador
On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that 10 Americans had been released as part of the deal.
'Thanks to @POTUS's [the president of the United States'] leadership, ten Americans who were detained in Venezuela are on their way to freedom,' Rubio wrote on social media.
El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele also celebrated the deal, saying that all of the Venezuelan deportees detained in his country have been 'handed over'.
'We carried out this exchange in return for a considerable number of Venezuelan political prisoners, people that regime had kept in its prisons for years, as well as all the American citizens it was holding as hostages,' Bukele, a US ally, wrote in a statement on social media.
'These individuals are now en route to El Salvador, where they will make a brief stop before continuing their journey home.'
Bukele has previously indicated he would be open to a detainee swap to release political prisoners in Venezuela. He and US President Donald Trump have long been critics of their Venezuelan counterpart, Nicolas Maduro, a socialist who has led Venezuela since 2013.
'This operation is the result of months of negotiations with a tyrannical regime that had long refused to release one of its most valuable bargaining chips: its hostages,' Bukele added.
The Venezuelan government confirmed it had received 252 citizens deported from the US and held in El Salvador.
In addition, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello told the media that seven children separated from their parents during deportations had also been sent from the US to Venezuela.
Friday's deal is the latest example of the complex, international negotiations underpinning President Donald Trump's push for mass deportation in the US.
Such a deal has long been rumoured between the three countries.
But the arrangement raises questions about how Trump's mass deportation push might be used as leverage for other foreign policy priorities. It has also reignited scrutiny about the treatment of individuals deported from the US to third-party countries they have no relation to.
A controversial deportation
Venezuela has protested the deportation of its citizens from the US to El Salvador, where more than 200 people were sent to a maximum-security prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) in March.
To facilitate that transfer, President Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — a wartime law only used three times prior — to allow for the swift removal of foreign nationals.
The US leader argued that undocumented migration into the US constituted an 'invasion' of criminals from outside countries.
His use of that law, however, has faced ongoing legal challenges about its constitutionality.
Critics also have pointed out that El Salvador has faced criticism for alleged human rights abuses in its prisons, including beatings, torture and sleep deprivation.
The CECOT prison is part of Bukele's own efforts at mass incarceration. It opened in 2023 with space to hold up to 40,000 people.
Trump argued that deporting the 200-plus Venezuelans was an urgent matter because they belonged to gangs like Tren de Aragua. Bukele echoed that accusation on Friday, saying that all the Venezuelan deportees were 'accused of being part of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua'.
But critics point out that some of the men had no criminal record whatsoever.
Lawyers representing some of the deported Venezuelans have since issued complaints alleging that their clients were targeted based on their clothing choices or tattoos, which US immigration officials then used to falsely tie them to gangs.
Third-party deportations
The Trump administration has also maintained that deportations to third-party countries like El Salvador are necessary for immigrants whose home countries will not accept them.
Venezuela has, in the past, refused to accept deportees from the US. Maduro and Trump have had a notoriously rocky relationship. In 2020, Trump even placed a $15m bounty for information that could lead to Maduro's arrest.
But rather than return to the 'maximum pressure' campaign that defined his first term as president, Trump has instead sought negotiations with the Venezuelan government during his second term.
In response, the Maduro government has signalled that it is willing to accept Venezuelan deportees from the US.
For example, it hosted US special envoy Richard Grenell in Caracas in late January, a trip that resulted in the release of six Americans held in Venezuela. The Maduro administration also released a detained US Air Force veteran in May, following another meeting with Grenell.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that Grenell's mission was to ensure 'all US detainees in Venezuela are returned home'. It is unclear how many remain in the country.
The US government, however, continues to deny the legitimacy of Maduro's presidency. Maduro's contested election to a third term in 2024 — marred by allegations of fraud — has further weakened his standing on the world stage.
Controversies over mass deportation
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has contended with controversies of its own. Last week, The New York Times reported that the Trump White House had 'botched' the agreement to free Americans in Venezuela, after Grenell and Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed rival deals.
The Times said that Rubio had proposed a trade: American prisoners for the Venezuelans held in El Salvador. But Grenell had offered different terms that would allow Venezuela to continue its trade relationship with the oil giant Chevron, a major boon for its beleaguered economy.
The result was reportedly confusion and uncertainty.
Furthermore, the Trump administration has faced scrutiny at home for its apparent unwillingness to repatriate immigrants who may have been unjustly deported.
In June, District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to ensure the Venezuelan men held in El Salvador received due process in the US. In his decision, Boasberg pointed out that their swift removal in March prevented them from contesting both their deportations and the allegations that they were gang members.
That court order, however, has been put on hold by a federal appeals court in Washington.
Friday's deal also raises questions about previous Trump administration claims that it was unable to release the deported men from the CECOT prison. Trump officials have long argued that, while in El Salvador, the deportees lie beyond the reach of the US government.
El Salvador's President Bukele has also claimed he had no power to allow the men's return. In an Oval Office appearance in April, Bukele spoke to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man briefly held in CECOT after he was wrongfully deported in March.
'The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don't have the power to return him to the United States,' Bukele told a reporter.
Media reports indicate that El Salvador received $6m in exchange for holding people deported from the US.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
White House says Trump is ‘open' to talks with Putin and Zelenskyy
The White House has said that United States President Donald Trump is 'open' to the idea of a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In remarks on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Russian officials had expressed interest in meeting with Trump. Leavitt did not say when or where such a meeting could take place, but AP quoted an anonymous White House official saying the meeting could happen within a week. 'The Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the president is open to meeting with both President Putin and President Zelenskyy,' Leavitt told members of the press following reports in the New York Times that Trump could meet with Putin in Russia as soon as next week. The US president has said that he is committed to helping bring the war in Ukraine to an end. He initially promised to stop the conflict on 'day one' of his presidency, but has struggled to make progress. The statement comes after US envoy Steve Witkoff visited Moscow to speak with Russian officials earlier today. In a social media post, Trump said Witkoff held a 'highly productive' meeting with Putin and that 'great progress was made!' 'Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come,' he added. The New York Times reported that Trump intends to meet first with Putin before later setting up a meeting that would also include Zelenskyy. The news agency AFP reported that Trump also discussed the possibility of such a meeting during a phone call with Zelenskyy, citing an anonymous Ukrainian source. That call is also said to have included NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and the leaders of Britain, Germany and Finland. Trump has recently mulled steps to further increase pressure on Russia, which he has accused of not being sincerely interested in ending the war. Such steps could include heightened US sanctions.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Public opinion is split as US marks 80th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing
On August 6, 1945, the United States became the first and only country in history to carry out a nuclear attack when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While the death toll of the bombing remains a subject of debate, at least 70,000 people were killed, though other figures are nearly twice as high. Three days later, the US dropped another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing at least 40,000 people. The stunning toll on Japanese civilians at first seemed to have little impact on public opinion in the US, where pollsters found approval for the bombing reached 85 percent in the days afterwards. To this day, US politicians continue to credit the bombing with saving American lives and ending World War II. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, perceptions have become increasingly mixed. A Pew Research Center poll last month indicated that Americans are split almost evenly into three categories. Nearly a third of respondents believe the use of the bomb was justified. Another third feels it was not. And the rest are uncertain about deciding either way. 'The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time,' Eileen Yam, the director of science and society research at Pew Research Center, told Al Jazeera in a recent phone call. 'This is something Americans have gotten less and less supportive of as time has gone by.' Tumbling approval rates Doubts about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the advent of nuclear weapons in general, did not take long to set in. 'From the beginning, it was understood that this was something different, a weapon that could destroy entire cities,' said Kai Bird, a US author who has written about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His Pulitzer Prize-winning book, American Prometheus, served as the basis for director Christopher Nolan's 2023 film, Oppenheimer. Bird pointed out that, even in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, some key politicians and public figures denounced it as a war crime. Early critics included physicist Albert Einstein and former President Herbert Hoover, who was quick to speak out against the civilian bloodshed. 'The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,' Hoover wrote within days of the bombing. Over time, historians have increasingly cast doubt on the most common justification for the atomic attacks: that they played a decisive role in ending World War II. Some academics point out that other factors likely played a larger role in the Japanese decision to surrender, including the Soviet Union's declaration of war against the island nation on August 8. Others have speculated whether the bombings were meant mostly as a demonstration of strength as the US prepared for its confrontation with the Soviet Union in what would become the Cold War. Accounts from Japanese survivors and media reports also played a role in changing public perceptions. John Hersey's 1946 profile of six victims, for instance, took up an entire edition of The New Yorker magazine. It chronicled, in harrowing detail, everything from the crushing power of the blast to the fever, nausea and death brought on by radiation sickness. By 1990, a Pew poll found that a shrinking majority in the US approved of the atomic bomb's use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only 53 percent felt it was merited. Rationalising US use of force But even at the close of the 20th century, the legacy of the attacks remained contentious in the US. For the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, had planned a special exhibit. But it was cancelled amid public furore over sections of the display that explored the experiences of Japanese civilians and the debate about the use of the atomic bomb. US veterans groups argued that the exhibit undermined their sacrifices, even after it underwent extensive revision. 'The exhibit still says in essence that we were the aggressors and the Japanese were the victims,' William Detweiler, a leader at the American Legion, a veterans group, told The Associated Press at the time. Incensed members of Congress opened an investigation, and the museum's director resigned. The exhibit, meanwhile, never opened to the public. All that remained was a display of the Enola Gay, the aeroplane that dropped the first atomic bomb. Erik Baker, a lecturer on the history of science at Harvard University, says that the debate over the atomic bomb often serves as a stand-in for larger questions about the way the US wields power in the world. 'What's at stake is the role of World War II in legitimising the subsequent history of the American empire, right up to the current day,' he told Al Jazeera. Baker explained that the US narrative about its role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — the main 'Axis Powers' in World War II — has been frequently referenced to assert the righteousness of US interventions around the world. 'If it was justifiable for the US to not just go to war but to do 'whatever was necessary' to defeat the Axis powers, by a similar token, there can't be any objection to the US doing what is necessary to defeat the 'bad guys' today,' he added. A resurgence of nuclear anxiety But as the generations that lived through World War II grow older and pass away, cultural shifts are emerging in how different age groups approach US intervention — and use of force — abroad. The scepticism is especially pronounced among young people, large numbers of whom have expressed dissatisfaction with policies such as US support for Israel's war in Gaza. In an April 2024 poll, the Pew Research Center found a dramatic generational divide among Americans over the question of global engagement. Approximately 74 percent of older respondents, aged 65 and up, expressed a strong belief that the US should play an active role on the world stage. But only 33 percent of younger respondents, aged 18 to 35, felt the same way. Last month's Pew poll on the atomic bomb also found stark differences in age. People over the age of 65 were more than twice as likely to believe that the bombings were justified than people between the ages of 18 and 29. Yam, the Pew researcher, said that age was the 'most pronounced factor' in the results, beating out other characteristics, such as party affiliation and veteran status. The 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing also coincides with a period of renewed anxiety about nuclear weapons. US President Donald Trump, for instance, repeatedly warned during his re-election campaign in 2024 that the globe was on the precipice of 'World War III'. 'The threat is nuclear weapons,' Trump told a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia. 'That can happen tomorrow.' 'We're at a place where, for the first time in more than three decades, nuclear weapons are back at the forefront of international politics,' said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US-based think tank. Panda says that such concerns are linked to geopolitical tensions between different states, pointing to the recent fighting between India and Pakistan in May as one example. The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, has prompted Russia and the US, the world's two biggest nuclear powers, to exchange nuclear-tinged threats. And in June, the US and Israel carried out attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities with the stated aim of setting back the country's ability to develop nuclear weapons. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombings, advocates hope the shift in public opinion will encourage world leaders to turn away from nuclear sabre-rattling and work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Seth Shelden, the United Nations liaison for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, explained that countries with nuclear weapons argue that their arsenals discourage acts of aggression. But he said those arguments diminish the 'civilisation-ending' dangers of nuclear warfare. 'As long as the nuclear-armed states prioritise nuclear weapons for their own security, they're going to incentivise others to pursue them as well,' he said. 'The question shouldn't be whether nuclear deterrence can work or whether it ever has worked,' he added. 'It should be whether it will work in perpetuity.'
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What Trump's tariffs mean for Shein and Temu shoppers
Are US tariffs about to end the 'add to cart' era? United States President Donald Trump's move to end the de minimis exemption closes a loophole used by Shein, Temu and others to ship duty-free. With costs likely passed to shoppers, consumers are starting to rethink the real price of ultra-cheap clothing.
