On 20 May, the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador approved the Foreign Agents Law, a regulation that imposes arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression and the legitimate work of human rights organizations and civil society. The law is based on the concept of “foreign agent” to impose restrictions that include a 30% tax on the receipt of international funds. It also gives the executive discretionary powers to cancel legal entity status and apply fines of up to US$250,000. The concept of “foreign agent” not only lacks a clear and precise legal definition, which leaves civil society organizations in a vulnerable situation in the face of state arbitrariness, but there is also abundant evidence of its growing use globally as a tool to restrict civic space and silence critical voices.
In this regard, Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International said: “Far from guaranteeing transparency, this law aims to institutionalize the persecution of organizations and becomes another tool to try to silence, weaken, and dismantle independent civil society. The ‘cool’ attitude that President Nayib Bukele tried to stamp on his actions increasingly resembles the worst of the authoritarian actions that have taken place in Latin America over the decades.”
Far from guaranteeing transparency, this law aims to institutionalize the persecution of organizations and becomes another tool to try to silence, weaken, and dismantle independent civil society. The ‘cool’ attitude that President Nayib Bukele tried to stamp on his actions increasingly resembles the worst of the authoritarian actions that have taken place in Latin America over the decades
Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International
This law is not an isolated measure. It joins a series of actions undertaken by the Salvadoran government in recent years to weaken and restrict the right of association, which have included disproportionate controls on nonprofits, and attempts to impose new fiscal, administrative, and registration requirements. These measures are part of a pattern of closing civic space, characterized by harassment, surveillance and stigmatizing discourse against those who defend human rights or demand accountability.
Identified risks
One of the most worrying elements of the legislation is the criminalization of the right of association by sanctioning actions protected by law and regional and international human rights standards. The law allows organizations to be punished simply for receiving funds from abroad by classifying them as “foreign agents”, without there being any justification based on their activities or the commission of any illegal act. This arbitrariness allows a wide margin for state discretion and can be used to harass, control or close down organizations that are inconvenient to those in power.
In addition, the law limits the right to freedom of expression and the right to defend human rights, by prohibiting political activities or activities that “disturb public order” without offering more details about such activities. This goes against the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), which establish that any restriction of rights must comply with the principle of legality and be strictly justified based on the legitimate objectives established in international human rights law. In addition, it must be non-discriminatory, necessary and proportional to achieving these objectives.
The 30% tax on funds from abroad represents a disproportionate and discriminatory fiscal punishment that hinders international cooperation and directly affects the functioning of non-governmental organizations. Several international mechanisms, such as the UN Office of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, have warned that access to external financing is essential to guarantee the independence and sustainability of civil society. In addition, it has warned that restrictions on international funding may be incompatible with international law when used to stigmatize or restrict organizations critical of the government, and has emphasized that they must comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
For its part, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has pointed out that limiting access to international financing may constitute a form of institutional repression. In its report Closure of Civic Space in Nicaragua (2023), the IACHR documented how similar laws have led to massive closures of organizations, raids, criminalization of social leaders, and widespread self-censorship.
Finally, the regulation establishes a sanctioning regime that includes very high fines, the possibility of canceling entities’ legal status, and a dependency on the executive – the Registry of Foreign Agents (RAEX) – with broad powers to supervise, revoke registrations and transmit information on alleged violations to the Prosecutor’s Office. This violates the principle of legal certainty and jeopardizes the autonomy of organizations.
The passage of the Foreign Agents Law represents a new blow to the already weakened civic space in El Salvador. This law does not come about in a vacuum: it is part of a worrying authoritarian escalation aimed at silencing critical voices and neutralizing independent civil society. El Salvador does not need more opacity or repression, it needs institutions that protect rights, not that criminalize them
Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International
“The passage of the Foreign Agents Law represents a new blow to the already weakened civic space in El Salvador. This law does not come about in a vacuum: it is part of a worrying authoritarian escalation aimed at silencing critical voices and neutralizing independent civil society. El Salvador does not need more opacity or repression, it needs institutions that protect rights, not that criminalize them,” said Ana Piquer.
A law without checks and balances
The danger posed by this law is greatly exacerbated in a context where the Public Ministry and the judiciary have been co-opted by the executive. In El Salvador today, the institutions responsible for overseeing and ensuring respect for the rule of law lack independence. Under these conditions, the broad powers granted by law to the executive and RAEX can be used to exercise direct and selective persecution against organizations that defend human rights, fight corruption or simply express critical views.
In addition, the law does not establish clear or effective mechanisms of judicial control that allow appealing, reviewing or overturning decisions that organizations may consider arbitrary or disproportionate. In the absence of reliable and independent judicial remedies, the affected organizations are practically defenseless against possible abuses of power.
When the power to supervise, sanction, and dissolve organizations remains in the hands of institutions aligned with the executive—and there are no real ways to challenge arbitrary decisions—the law ceases to be a legal tool and becomes a political weapon. In El Salvador, this combination is profoundly dangerous for those who exercise their right to dissent
Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International
“When the power to supervise, sanction, and dissolve organizations remains in the hands of institutions aligned with the executive—and there are no real ways to challenge arbitrary decisions—the law ceases to be a legal tool and becomes a political weapon. In El Salvador, this combination is profoundly dangerous for those who exercise their right to dissent,” warned Ana Piquer.
Header image: General view of the blue room of the Legislative Palace of El Salvador before the inauguration of the elected deputies for the new Legislative Assembly of El Salvador on May 1, 2024 in San Salvador, El Salvador. Photo by Juan Rivas/APHOTOGRAFIA/Getty Images.
