In what may be one of the Trump administration’s most controversial proposals yet, officials have floated the idea of sending certain U.S. citizens, particularly those convicted of violent crimes, to be imprisoned in El Salvador. The notion, reportedly offered by El Salvador’s Trump-aligned President Nayib Bukele, was confirmed by Trump himself during a press conference in the Oval Office. “I don’t know what the law says on that,” Trump admitted, though White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later insisted the plan was “under serious consideration.”
“The president has said if it’s legal, right, if there is a legal pathway to do that, he’s not sure,” Leavitt said during a press briefing. “We are not sure if there is. It’s an idea that he has simply floated and has discussed very publicly as in the effort of transparency.” According to her, the idea would apply only to “heinous, violent criminals who have broken our nation’s laws repeatedly.”
But even this unusual candor about the plan’s legality hasn’t silenced growing outrage from legal experts. That level of doubt is “highly telling,” critics argue, especially since the administration often insists its actions are fully legal, no matter how extreme. In this case, as per constitutional scholars, the concept would be flatly illegal and “spectacularly unconstitutional.”
There is no legal authority allowing the federal government to sentence a U.S. citizen to serve time in a foreign prison. The Supreme Court has previously ruled against similar overreaches of executive power. In Valentine v. United States (1936), the Court made it clear that the president cannot extradite an American citizen without clear approval from a treaty or an act of Congress.
While the U.S. does have a 1911 extradition treaty with El Salvador, the State Department told Congress in 2001 that it doesn’t compel either country to surrender its own citizens. Furthermore, Trump’s plan doesn’t envision extradition for trial but rather the outsourcing of punishment after a domestic conviction. That makes it legally untenable under any current framework.
Some commentators have inaccurately referred to the proposal as “deportation.” However, deportation refers exclusively to noncitizens. For U.S. citizens, this would more accurately be described as exile, a practice that the courts and Constitution have long viewed with suspicion and disdain.
In Ng Fung Ho v. White (1922), the Supreme Court ruled that deporting someone who claims U.S. citizenship without due process violates the Fifth Amendment. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that such deportation “deprives him of liberty… and may result also in loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.”
Attempts to circumvent this through revocation of citizenship have also failed. In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), the Court struck down laws allowing the removal of citizenship from draft dodgers. In Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the Court declared: “We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship… unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship,” as written by Justice Hugo Black.
While naturalized citizens can lose their status in rare cases of fraud, the bar is high. In Maslenjak v. United States (2017), the Court unanimously ruled that small omissions in immigration applications aren’t enough to justify denaturalization.
Trump is now openly confirming that, yes, his government has and will deport US citizens. Every miserable asshole who called me hysterical, fear mongering, liar etc. when I said this is happening should go eat shit. https://t.co/N0kNxHcVo0
— Uju Anya (@UjuAnya) April 8, 2025
These cases bring out the fundamental idea that U.S. citizenship guarantees the right to live within the country’s borders. To exile a citizen, especially into a Salvadoran prison, would be akin to stripping away that constitutional identity and protection.
Historically, practices of exile and banishment were seen as hallmarks of oppressive regimes. Even colonial America bristled against Britain’s practice of sending defendants across the ocean for trial. The Declaration of Independence directly rebukes such treatment: “transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences.”
James Madison himself condemned banishment in an 1799 report where he criticized the Alien and Sedition Acts. He denounced “arbitrary and unusual process” and called banishing even friendly aliens a cruel punishment.
Lawrence O’Donnell claims that Trump wants to start rounding up US citizens and deporting them..pic.twitter.com/Ko0xo0lHtR
— Department of Government Efficiency News (@DOGE__news) April 11, 2025
Given that level of disgust from the Framers about the removal of noncitizens, experts argue the idea of exiling actual U.S. citizens, especially without judicial process would have been considered an even greater constitutional offense.
In a presidency already marked with legal controversies and authoritarian leanings, few proposals may prove more radical or dangerous than this. If executed, forcibly sending American citizens to foreign prisons could cross a constitutional red line the nation has never dared breach.
