Statement of Concern Regarding the Foreign Agents Law in El Salvador, and its Threat to Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders

Traducción al español disponible aquí/Click here to access this report in Spanish

SUMMARY

The Vance Center for International Justice and the Inter-American Affairs Committee have raised strong concerns about the approval and potential enforcement of El Salvador’s Foreign Agents Law. This law, targeting non-governmental organizations (NGOs), human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society groups that receive foreign funding, would label them as “foreign agents” and subject them to excessive state control, administrative burdens, and severe penalties. It imposes a 30% tax on foreign donations and creates a registry (RAEX) for NGOs that would oversee their operations, imposing stringent reporting and financial disclosure requirements. Violations could lead to heavy fines or even the suspension of an organization’s legal status. It follows a protest against President Nayib Bukele and has been viewed as a possible authoritarian measure in retaliation for dissent. The City Bar calls on the Salvadoran government to engage with civil society and international human rights organizations to ensure that regulations align with international standards. The City Bar also urges the international community to monitor the law’s implementation closely, emphasizing that such efforts to curtail civic space will have serious international consequences.

REPORT

STATEMENT OF CONCERN REGARDING THE FOREIGN AGENTS LAW IN EL SALVADOR, AND ITS THREAT TO CIVIL SOCIETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

The New York City Bar Association[1] (the “City Bar”) expresses its deep concern over the approval and potential implementation of the proposed Foreign Agents Law in El Salvador.[2] This legislation, if enacted, would impose severe restrictions on the operations of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors receiving international funding, labeling them as “foreign agents” and subjecting them to disproportionate state control, burdensome administrative requirements, and punitive sanctions. The timing and context of the proposal—introduced shortly after a protest outside the President’s residence—raise serious concerns that this may be an authoritarian measure enacted in retaliation against dissent.

The City Bar underscores that the law, as drafted, raises grave risks to the fundamental freedoms of association, expression, and participation protected under international human rights standards. Its provisions could be used to criminalize legitimate civic activity, stigmatize organizations critical of the government, and shrink civic space in ways that erode democratic accountability and the rule of law.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2025, the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador passed the Foreign Agents Law^[3], which imposes a 30% tax on transactions, disbursements, donations, or in-kind imports received by non-governmental organizations. This legislative move came just after it was proposed on May 14 by Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, following a protest on March 14 held in front of Bukele’s residence. This raises concerns that the law was an authoritarian measure enacted in retaliation.^[4]

On March 14, a group of 300 families gathered outside the residential complex where the Salvadoran president lives to express their concerns over a court order mandating the eviction of their lands.^[5] The protest was peaceful; however, the Salvadoran security forces used violence to disperse the group, which included elderly people and children. They also arrested five individuals who were leading the protests.^[6] Bukele responded on social media, stating: “Yesterday, we witnessed how humble people were manipulated by self-proclaimed leftist groups and globalist NGOs, whose only real objective is to attack the government. The coordinated presence of the media, the obvious busing in of people, and the professionally printed banners confirm it.”^[7] In the same thread of posts, the president confirmed the creation of a new legislative project: the Foreign Agents Law, which, according to his words “will include a 30% tax on all donations these NGOs receive. With those funds, the cooperative’s debt will be paid off.”[8]

Importantly, this was not the first time Bukele had advanced such legislation.^[9] Since November 2021, the Foreign Agents Bill has been strongly condemned by civil society organizations, including the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF), and the Latin America Working Group (LAWG), among others. These organizations have consistently warned that the bill seeks to silence critics, restrict freedom of expression, and criminalize independent media and human rights groups in El Salvador. In 2021, the initial draft of the bill[10] would have forced individuals and organizations receiving foreign funding to register as “foreign agents” with a government-controlled body under threat of severe penalties, including dissolution, criminal charges, and fines of up to $200,000. It also proposed a 40% tax on all foreign funds — a measure with no precedent globally.^[11] Due to strong criticism, the proposal remained a draft and was eventually shelved.

The approval of the Foreign Agents Law in El Salvador comes at a time of heightened repression against civil society, independent media, and human rights defenders. This legislative development unfolded in the same period when prominent human rights lawyer Ruth López Alfaro was detained and held incommunicado for over 40 hours — a case that drew international alarm. On May 23, 2025, the City Bar publicly expressed deep concern over her detention, underscoring that it exemplifies a broader pattern of state-led reprisals against those defending accountability, transparency, and fundamental rights. The simultaneous passage of the Foreign Agents Law and the escalation of attacks against independent legal professionals reveal a dangerous tightening of civic space in El Salvador.[12]

In sum, the Foreign Agents Law marks not only the revival of past authoritarian proposals but also a troubling escalation in the Salvadoran government’s crackdown on dissent, civic space, and independent oversight. Despite strong domestic and international criticism over the years, the Bukele administration has pressed forward with legislation that imposes unprecedented restrictions on civil society. This evolving context sets the stage for a closer examination of the newly approved legislation — its scope, provisions, and the concrete mechanisms it introduces.

II. APPROVED LEGISLATION

Currently, the text of the approved bill has not been made public; however, according to the website of the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador[13], the general elements of this legislation are as follows:

According to what was approved by the legislators, a 30% tax will be applied to each financial transaction, disbursement, transfer, or importation in kind or of material goods of any type — originating from foreign principals, whether through donations, payments, or other concepts — in favor of their foreign agents in the country. Regarding the 30% tax, a parliamentarian detailed that it will also apply to imports in kind or material goods of any type, when determined by the Foreign Agents Registry.

1. Creation of the RAEX

The law will create the Foreign Agents Registry (RAEX), an office under the Ministry of the Interior and Territorial Development, headed by a general director appointed by the ministry. All obligated entities must register mandatorily in the public registry. RAEX will be authorized to administer and regulate any type of instrument for its development, establish the requirements for the registration of obligated entities under this law, and approve, deny, renew, or not renew registration or excluded-subject status applications, as appropriate. Additionally, it will supervise, audit, and control the activities of foreign agents, depending on their field, activity, size, and other characteristics, and may request necessary reports when it deems appropriate.

2. Obligations of Foreign Agents

a. Register with RAEX under the requirements and formats it establishes, through a sworn registration declaration submitted in duplicate to the Registry and the Office of the Attorney General.

b. Channel financial resources or assets received, through any subject, entity, or institution, whether or not supervised or regulated by the Financial System Superintendency, as long as it is legally authorized to operate in the country or conducts activities related to the intermediation, management, or transfer of funds within the national territory.

c. Comply with the Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Law, as applicable.

d. Keep accounting books and preserve all records related to their activities, according to the guidelines established by RAEX for such purposes.

e. Comply with all provisions established by the Foreign Agents Registry, this law, its regulations, and any other applicable norms.

3. Fines and Sanctions (Art. 19)

Those who fail to comply with the obligations and deadlines established for submitting required information and addressing notices, without justified and proven cause, may be sanctioned with a fine ranging from $100,000 to $150,000.

Meanwhile, violations of prohibitions will be sanctioned with fines ranging from $150,000 to $250,000. Additionally, this provision includes sanctions such as the prohibition on operating or moving resources if registration requirements are not met, as well as the possibility of suspension of legal personality.

4. Prohibitions (Art. 9)

i. Carrying out activities not registered with RAEX.

ii. Using donations for purposes or objectives that do not correspond to those established in the Association’s or Foundation’s bylaws.

iii. Receiving funds from anonymous sources.

iv. Disseminating content without indicating that it was financed by a “foreign principal.”

v. Carrying out activities considered “of a political nature” or that “alter national stability.”

While the legislative framework outlined above details the structural components, obligations, prohibitions, and sanctions established by the new Foreign Agents Law, it is crucial to examine the broader implications of these provisions within the context of El Salvador’s international human rights commitments. Beyond the formal text of the law, the real impact lies in how these measures affect the rights and freedoms of civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and the broader civic space. The following section analyzes the potential violations of international human rights law arising from this legislation, assessing its compatibility with El Salvador’s obligations under key international treaties and human rights standards.

III. REACTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

According to Human Rights Watch[14] and Amnesty International[15], El Salvador’s newly approved Foreign Agents Law violates the country’s obligations under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights. Both organizations stress that the law imposes vague, arbitrary, and disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression and association, failing to meet international standards of necessity, proportionality, and legal clarity. They warn that, far from ensuring transparency, the law institutionalizes the persecution of critical organizations, criminalizes legitimate activities, and creates a system without checks and balances in a context where key institutions have already been captured by the Executive. Drawing comparisons to similar measures in Russia and Nicaragua, Human Rights Watch highlights that the European Court of Human Rights recently found Russia’s foreign agents law to violate basic freedoms, describing its stigmatizing effects as characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Both organizations call on the international community to strongly oppose the Salvadoran law, emphasizing that silence now would betray the principles upheld elsewhere.

IV. POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

The recently approved legislation has raised serious concerns regarding the restrictions imposed on civic space and the exercise of fundamental rights in El Salvador. As detailed below, several provisions of this new legislation risk violating the rights to access justice, free association, and free expression.

As the City Bar noted in two public statements from October 2024 and April 2025, expressing concern about similar legislation to regulate non-profit organizations in Paraguay[16] and a Peru[17],  this new Salvadoran bill could violate the following international human rights standards.

A. Freedom of Association

The right to freedom of association, as guaranteed by Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 16 of the American Convention of Human Rights (ACHR), guarantees the right to form and join formal and informal groups, including non-profit organizations. Under these international treaties, States must abstain from unduly obstructing this right and take measures to establish and maintain a safe and enabling environment for associations to function and to respect their privacy and that of their members. The right to freedom of association has also been found to include the right to access funding and resources.[18]

The ICCPR and ACHR provide a limited scope by which States may restrict the freedom of association. Article 22.2 of the ICCPR states that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of [the freedom of association] other than those which are prescribed by law, and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Similarly, the ACHR exclusively allows for the same restrictions on the freedom of association as the ICCPR.[19]

The U.N. Human Rights Committee[20] has consistently affirmed in its jurisprudence and guidance that “a restriction on the right to freedom of association can be justified only if it cumulatively meets” the conditions set out in ICCPR article 22.2 and is proportionate in nature.[21] Therefore, restrictions must (1) be provided for by law, (2) address a clear purpose set out in article 22.2, and (3) be “necessary in a democratic society.”[22] Similarly, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders has emphasized that “States should always be guided by the principle that the restrictions must not impair the essence of the right.”[23] In this sense, the ability of organizations to operate for lawful aims must prevail over non-essential restrictions.

1. Provided for by law

The first prong of the test, “provided for by law,” is a procedural and a content requirement. Any restriction on the freedom of association must be outlined in a “duly promulgated law, regulation, decree, order, or decision of an adjudicative body.“[24] Additionally, the content of the restriction must be clearly enunciated to be considered “prescribed.“[25]

The approved legislation includes vague provisions—such as the broad and undefined classification of actions that “alter national stability” — which grant broad discretion to government authorities and enabling arbitrary enforcement. International standards require that laws affecting fundamental rights be precise and predictable, ensuring that individuals and organizations can understand what conduct is prohibited. These ambiguous terms grant RAEX excessive discretion to determine when an NGO’s activities violate the law, creating legal uncertainty and enabling arbitrary enforcement.

2. In the interest of a clear purpose set out in ICCPR article 22.2

With regard to the second prong, a restriction must fall under one of the permitted purposes under ICCPR article 22.2, including, as mentioned above, an interest in national security or public order, protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Although President Nayib Bukele publicly justified the Foreign Agents Law by claiming it would help repay the debt of families facing eviction — proposing that a 30% tax on all NGO donations be used to prevent displacements — this justification does not align with the legitimate aims recognized under international human rights law. According to ICCPR Article 22.2 and ACHR Article 16, any restriction on freedom of association must serve clearly defined purposes such as national security, public order, or the protection of public health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Redirecting foreign donations through state-imposed taxation to resolve local debt issues, however socially framed, fails to meet this legal threshold. Instead, it risks transforming civil society’s resources into a government-controlled pool, undermining the autonomy and purpose of independent organizations, particularly those working on human rights, accountability, or governance issues. International bodies have consistently warned that vague or politically convenient justifications — such as “national development” or “helping the people” — are insufficient grounds for restricting fundamental rights and create a dangerous precedent for using fiscal tools to silence or control dissenting voices.

3. Necessary in a democratic society

The U.N. Human Rights Committee has explained that the notion of a “democratic society” in the last prong of the cumulative test means a society where associations may “peacefully promote ideas not necessarily favorably received by the government or the majority of the population.“[26] In short, restrictions must respect freedom of expression and not be used to suppress dissent. Further, for a restriction to be “necessary in a democratic society” (emphasis added), the restriction must be proportionate to its objective. Drawing on precedent of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights in an analysis of national legislation regulating the activities of human rights defenders and organizations, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders stated that “the principle of necessity requires [showing] … that the law in question is the best available means of achieving that result [and] . . . that the impact of the law is as targeted as possible, thereby impairing the exercise of the affecting rights as little as possible.”[27] The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that the freedoms of association and expression are essential to maintaining democracy and should be given the “maximum protection possible.”[28]

The Salvadoran law imposes sweeping reporting, registration, and financial controls on all organizations receiving foreign support, regardless of their size, mission, or risk profile. It creates heavy sanctions, including fines of up to $250,000 and the possibility of suspending an organization’s legal personality, for violations that may be minor or administrative in nature. These measures are not narrowly tailored and create a chilling effect, discouraging independent organizations — particularly those engaged in human rights, accountability, or governance work — from operating freely.

B. Internal affairs of organizations

Independence and non-interference in the internal affairs of organizations are essential elements for the full realization of freedom of association. The Human Rights Council recognized this principle in a resolution, stating that “reporting requirements placed on individuals, groups and organs of society [should] not inhibit functional autonomy.“[29] The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Association has observed that governments often use “extensive scrutiny over the internal affairs of associations, as a way of intimidation and harassment.”[30] This observation was echoed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, who stated that “States should not interfere with the internal management and activities of NGOs.”[31] Excessive State monitoring and internal interference suppress critical voices and weaken democratic debate.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Association and other special rapporteurs have repeatedly expressed that organizations must be allowed to conduct their activities freely, including the determination of their internal governance and activities,[32] and that organizations should be free from undue interference.[33] In response to concerns over similar NGO bills in other countries, the U.N. Special Rapporteurs have noted that under the ICCPR states have a positive obligation to establish and maintain an enabling environment[34] for the full realization of the freedom of association.

Government control over foreign funding creates a chilling effect on the activities of NGOs. Access to financing is an essential element in the realization of freedom of association. The issue of access to funding, particularly foreign funding, has been discussed in detail by human rights bodies. The international community, represented by the U.N. General Assembly, has recognized the right of association to encompass the right “to solicit, receive and utilize resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms through peaceful means.”[35] Similarly, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Association stated that “[a]ny association, both registered or unregistered, should have the right to seek and secure funding and resources from domestic, foreign, and international entities.”[36]

The Foreign Agents Law introduces overly broad and vague terms, such as “altering national stability” or activities deemed “of a political nature,” that capture an unreasonably wide range of activities, and imposes excessive registration, reporting, and financial disclosure obligations. It further empowers state authorities to prohibit the operation or movement of resources if registration requirements are not met and allows for the suspension of legal personality, all without adequate procedural safeguards.

This framework runs counter to El Salvador’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and other international treaties guaranteeing the right to freedom of association and expression, as interpreted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The United Nations Special Rapporteurs on freedom of association and on the situation of human rights defenders have repeatedly emphasized that states must not misuse foreign funding regulations to restrict or delegitimize the work of civil society organizations. International law clearly affirms that receiving funds from international sources is an integral part of the right to freedom of association.

In summary, the Foreign Agents Law adopted by El Salvador presents clear and substantial risks of violating internationally protected rights, particularly the freedoms of association, expression, and access to funding. Its vague language, disproportionate restrictions, excessive sanctions, and lack of procedural safeguards create an environment of legal uncertainty and intimidation that undermines the ability of civil society organizations to operate independently and effectively. By failing to meet the requirements of legality, legitimate purpose, necessity, and proportionality under international human rights law, this legislative framework threatens to erode the very civic space that is essential for a democratic society.

V. THE CITY BAR CALLS ON THE SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT CIVIC SPACE

The City Bar urgently calls on the Salvadoran government to engage in meaningful consultations with civil society, international human rights bodies, and independent experts to ensure that any regulatory framework for civic activity fully complies with international human rights standards.

We also call on international human rights bodies, regional organizations, foreign governments, and the international legal community to remain vigilant and closely monitor the implementation of this law. Sustained international attention is essential to deter abuses, ensure accountability, and stand in solidarity with Salvadoran civil society. The international community must send a clear message: efforts to restrict civic space, stifle dissent, and undermine the work of independent organizations will not go unnoticed and will carry reputational and diplomatic consequences.

The City Bar reaffirms its solidarity with Salvadoran civil society, lawyers, human rights defenders, and journalists, and stands ready to support efforts to defend civic space, the rule of law, and democratic freedoms in the country.

Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice

Jaime Chávez Alor, Associate Executive Director

Romina Canessa, Senior Staff Attorney, Human Rights and Access to Justice Program

Cuitlahuac Castillo Camarena, Program Advisor, Institutional Integrity Program

Milena Klimberg van Marrewijk, Program Advisor, Human Rights and Access to Justice Program

Inter-American Affairs Committee
Jessenia Vazcones-Yagual, Chair

June 2025