Could Trump Have Solved Prison Overcrowding? Examining the U.S.-El Salvador Discussions
The United States has long struggled with prison overcrowding, a crisis that strains resources, reduces rehabilitation opportunities, and drives up costs for taxpayers. While no definitive solution has been implemented, discussions between U.S. and Salvadoran officials suggest that an agreement could have presented a potential way to alleviate this burden at minimal expense.
What Was Discussed?
During talks between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, a potential arrangement was explored in which El Salvador would accept deportees from the United States, including individuals convicted of crimes, regardless of nationality. However, this remained at the discussion stage and was not an implemented plan or a formal proposal with concrete steps.
El Salvador, under Bukele’s administration, has already built one of the largest and most secure prisons in Latin America—the Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT). With a capacity to house 40,000 inmates, this facility is designed to manage large prison populations effectively. The U.S. could have theoretically leveraged this infrastructure to transfer certain incarcerated individuals at a fraction of the cost of maintaining them in domestic facilities. However, the feasibility and legal implications of such a move remain speculative at this stage.
Could This Have Reduced Costs?
The financial burden of incarceration in the U.S. is staggering, with an average cost of around $30,000 per inmate annually. If outsourcing certain categories of prisoners—such as non-citizen convicts or those with deportation orders—had been pursued, federal and state governments might have seen substantial savings in operational expenses.
Additionally, El Salvador was reportedly open to receiving a fee per inmate, a cost that would still have been considerably lower than what the U.S. currently spends on housing and maintaining prisoners. This type of arrangement could have freed up resources to improve rehabilitation programs and reduce recidivism rates domestically.
A Missed Opportunity or a Cautionary Tale?
If successfully executed, such an agreement might have served as a model for future international cooperation in prison management. It had the potential to relieve overcrowded U.S. facilities while offering El Salvador an economic incentive to further develop its criminal justice infrastructure.
While these discussions were held, no formal agreement has been implemented or finalized between the U.S. and El Salvador regarding the transfer of prisoners. The proposal remains speculative, leaving the question open: Could this have been a viable solution to America’s prison crisis? With careful implementation and oversight, similar partnerships might still emerge in the future as policymakers continue seeking effective and fiscally responsible solutions to long-standing criminal justice challenges.