{"id":331923,"date":"2025-08-10T01:21:14","date_gmt":"2025-08-10T01:21:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/331923\/"},"modified":"2025-08-10T01:21:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-10T01:21:14","slug":"congress-next-step-to-stop-trumps-transfers-to-torture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/331923\/","title":{"rendered":"Congress’ Next Step to Stop Trump\u2019s Transfers to Torture"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since March, the Trump administration has been rounding up and forcibly transferring people to foreign countries of which they are not nationals. In many of these cases, including the March transfer of over 200 Venezuelans to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador, the third-party countries are known perpetrators of significant human rights abuses, according to the U.S. government\u2019s own State Department. As we wrote in March<\/a>, the removal of individuals in such circumstances \u2013 whether to a person\u2019s country of nationality or not \u2013 violates the prohibition on transferring individuals to torture, which is enshrined in both treaty and U.S. statute. U.S. immigration statutes more broadly<\/a> prohibit most removals to countries where an individual\u2019s \u201clife or freedom would be threatened [because of their] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n

The administration\u2019s transfers of people to abusive and otherwise dangerous conditions in foreign countries has raised significant alarm, including within Congress. In May, we wrote<\/a> about a legislative effort spearheaded by Senator Time Kaine (D-VA) intended to force the Trump administration to provide Congress with certain information related to its transfers to torture in El Salvador. We described the bill, sometimes referred to as a \u201c502B\u201d resolution, as a welcome effort but containing significant flaws. In our view, it fell short in two respects: First, due to some key omissions and the narrow scope of individuals covered \u2013 \u201cU.S. citizens or residents,\u201d a specious concept and one that risked undermining the treaty and statutory protections for all individuals \u2013 it would not have elicited the information the senators were demanding regarding the immediate crisis that compelled it. Second, that narrow language risked reinforcing a dangerous false dichotomy the Trump administration is advancing to justify its broader immigration agenda: that only some people are deserving of humane treatment.<\/p>\n

On August 1, Sen. Kaine introduced six new 502b resolutions, one for each of the additional countries to which the Trump administration has reportedly transferred people: Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Eswatini. As we explain below, these new resolutions resolve the concerns we originally raised. We welcome these changes and applaud this effort.<\/p>\n

The original El Salvador resolution failed on a party-line vote. But demanding that the executive branch provide the most basic of information about the conditions to which it is consigning human beings transferred from U.S. shores should not be a partisan issue. And if senators are serious about guarding Congress\u2019 constitutional prerogatives, then basic oversight like this \u2013 on an issue so consequential \u2013 is a must. These six new bills should pass unanimously.<\/p>\n

A Quick Refresher on 502b Resolutions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (codified at\u00a022 U.S.C. 2304<\/a>) requires that U.S. foreign policy seek \u201cto promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries,\u201d and so prohibits the United States from providing security assistance to \u201cany country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of\u00a0gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.\u201d It includes two enforcement mechanisms, one of which empowers Congress, through a simple resolution, to require the State Department to produce a report on a country\u2019s human rights record \u2013 including any related information Congress specifies \u2013 within 30 days. Failure to provide the report, entirely or in reasonable fashion, would end (at least temporarily), or potentially restrict, U.S. security assistance to that country.<\/p>\n

Developments Since the El Salvador Resolution <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

As noted above, the six new 502b resolutions were prompted by reports that, in addition to the El Salvador transfers, the Trump administration has now sent people to Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Eswatini. The new resolutions are also critical for several related reasons. In June, the Supreme Court issued a decision permitting, at least for the time being, the Trump administration to continue its version of \u201cthird-country removals,\u201d which involve sending immigrants with final removal orders to countries other than the ones designated in their removal proceedings. But the administration has been doing so without first providing these people with an opportunity to litigate whether they face torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in that country. (The plaintiffs in the case, D.V.D. v DHS \u2013 whose transfer to South Sudan had been halted mid-flight by a district court order, stranding them in a converted shipping container in Djibouti \u2013 have since been sent to South Sudan.)<\/p>\n

As part of the litigation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a memorandum purporting to \u201cclarify\u201d its policy regarding third-country removals, but, in fact, asserting radical claims to retain total discretion over assessments of whether individuals could be safely removed to particular countries. The memorandum<\/a> \u2013 titled Guidance for Third Country Removals \u2013 is notable for several reasons, including the weight DHS affords diplomatic assurances from removal countries:<\/p>\n

\n

Prior to the alien\u2019s removal to a country that had not previously been designated as the country of removal, DHS must determine whether that country has provided diplomatic assurances that aliens removed from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured. If the United States has received such assurances, and if the Department of State believes those assurances to be credible, the alien may be removed without the need for further procedures.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As we said<\/a> in March, while diplomatic assurances would be part of the picture regarding whether the Trump administration is taking any steps to address known concerns with conditions in a transfer country, such assurances do not suffice to remediate a transfer to abuse. There are myriad significant problems with the policy, including that it seeks to withdraw judicial oversight of DHS assessments of an individual\u2019s eligibility for protections from removal. But even the government\u2019s own guidance recognizes that it must ensure that any assurances it receives from a third-party country are credible. This is true whether the transfer follows a removal proceeding, or is pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, or otherwise. It is true regardless of the individual\u2019s immigration status or country of nationality.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture has made clear<\/a> that diplomatic assurances are not sufficient to satisfy a country\u2019s nonrefoulment obligations (the requirement that no one is returned to a country where they would face torture), and has called on governments \u201cto refrain from seeking diplomatic assurances and the conclusion of memoranda of understanding in order to circumvent their international obligation not to deport anybody if there is a serious risk of torture or ill treatment.\u201d The diplomatic assurances that we now know<\/a> the administration sought and received from El Salvador prior to renditions to the country\u2019s CECOT prison are a perfect example of why.<\/p>\n

In diplomatic notes<\/a> exchanged between the United States and El Salvador over the two days prior to the first transfers, El Salvador \u201cassure[d] that \u2026 the reception of these individuals will be conducted in accordance with Salvadoran law and international obligations, including adherence to the Convention against Torture.\u201d But as we\u2019ve explained previously, a mountain of evidence<\/a> demonstrated that senior Trump administration officials were \u201cnot merely aware of the array of gross human rights violations and related abuses these men [would] face in El Salvador; they welcome[d] it.\u201d Having watched those violations begin immediately \u2013 in fact the White House posted a video of Salvadoran security forces dragging the shackled men off the plane and forcibly shaving them, alongside a message from Trump calling the men \u201cmonsters\u201d \u2013 the administration then sent another 16 men to El Salvador on March 30. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said<\/a>, \u201cthey should stay there for the rest of their lives.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n

Exacerbating\u00a0both of these developments \u2013 the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in D.V.D., and the administration\u2019s heavy reliance on diplomatic assurances that it has no intention of ensuring are credible \u2013 on August 6, the Washington Post\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0that several leaked chapters of the State Department\u2019s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices suggest the Trump administration intends to whitewash certain human rights abuses in those countries. The El Salvador chapter in particular reportedly includes the risible<\/a> sentence:\u00a0There were \u201cno credible reports of significant human rights abuses\u201d in 2024. All of this makes it even more important that Congress has full visibility into the administration\u2019s processes, analyses, and decisions related to third-country transfers. Kaine\u2019s new 502b resolutions would afford Congress just that.<\/p>\n

How the Six New Resolutions Get It Right<\/strong><\/p>\n

The resolutions Kaine introduced request information critical to the government and the public\u2019s ability to analyze these transfers and the conditions of confinement. Each of the resolutions requests the same information regarding each country\u2019s human rights record overall, and actions the U.S. government has taken to advance human rights and disassociate U.S. security assistance from any violations in those countries. We had identified two problems with the original El Salvador resolution: first, an information gap between what we understood to be the purpose of the resolutions and the actual requests; second, language that could have been perceived to suggest that certain fundamental human rights apply only to those with substantial ties to the United States. Read in the context out of which they arise, the six new resolutions resolve both.<\/p>\n

The new resolutions request all of the information we believed was missing from the El Salvador resolution:<\/p>\n