HoraCero: It is impossible to talk about Central America and US policy without thinking about immigration issues. What is the current situation in the region regarding migration and its relationship with the United States?

Ana María Mendéz: Unfortunately, the causes that drive hundreds of Central Americans to migrate continue to exist. We see a region hurt by authoritarian regimes or undemocratic practices implemented by various actors.  The United States government itself has recognized this as a structural causes of migration. The lack of the rule of law and democratic institutions is a cause of migration, gender violence is another component that the government itself has tried to work on since 2021, which was when they launched what is known in English as Root Causes Strategy. Although the United States has made an effort to implement this strategy, it is a bit difficult when there are no reliable interlocutors in the region.

For example, the government of Nayib Bukele has practically dismantled democratic institutions, and in Guatemala, the government of Bernardo Arévalo has had to take on a broken country. The United States has another initiative called Central America Adelante. Vice President Kamala Harris led this project to seek investment from both transnational companies and the local private sector to generate employment as immigration due to the economy is one of the main issues in the region. I believe that the migratory flow will continue because the causes continue to be in the countries. It must be understood that these policies of the United States government are long-term issues.

HoraCero: What is the difference between this strategy compared to Trump’s strategy during his administration?

Ana María Méndez: Biden did try to make a change by highlighting the importance of promoting access to justice and the rule of law, but this does not depend entirely on the United States government, and that recognition was not in the Trump administration. The similarities have been promoting investment and making alliances with the private sector, both local and transnational, to promote job creation. I believe that this has been more of a continuity and that the policies have been adapted to new contexts, however, the Root Causes Strategy was not recognized by the Trump administration.

HoraCero: Regarding this strategy of investing economic resources in Central America to combat poverty and to prevent migrants from continuing to move north, what is the balance you can make about this initiative? Was it effective?

Ana María Méndez: At the regional level, it is very difficult to do a general analysis, but rather by country. During the Trump administration in the Guatemalan case, the fight against corruption was practically relegated to a fifth level, and that resulted in the expulsion of what was known as the CICIG.

Kamala proposes to combat corruption and strengthen democratic institutions to advance the rule of law. If we have seen that attempts have been made with this administration and when there are interlocutors it can work, in the case of Guatemala an attempt has been made through the government of Bernardo Arévalo to promote greater transparency and other projects to combat corruption, at least on the side of the Executive Branch, understanding that in Guatemala justice is co-opted. The problem is that the region is fragmented in many ways; in most countries, there is no independence of the judiciary, and there is no access to justice, and that makes a bilateral relationship that the United States can have with each country more difficult.

HoraCero: In the region, we also have two emblematic cases of authoritarianism, which are El Salvador and Nicaragua. How can we understand the relationship of the United States with these countries?

Ana María Méndez: It is important to understand that this is not only an election for the president of the United States, but it also changes Congress, because, in a scenario in which Trump wins, who has openly threatened to completely change Biden’s policies regarding the rule of law, justice and so on, a counterweight is needed within the United States Congress, especially in two committees that are among the most important. One is the Appropriations Committee, which decides how much cooperation or assistance funds are allocated for the region, and the second is the Foreign Relations Committee, which also decides on very important policies for the region.

The case of Nicaragua is particular because the country faces a dictatorship that has been consolidated in recent years without precedent and I believe that the United States has not had a comprehensive approach to what is happening in the country. On the side of Congress, there have been important laws, and there have been very clear bipartisan agreements to address the situation in Nicaragua, where both Democrats and Republicans have agreed through the Nica Act or the Renacer Law. A big obstacle is the fact that there is a commercial relationship that the United States has wanted to protect with Nicaragua. The trade relationship must be understood not only by what Nicaragua can export to the United States but also by the fact that the United States seeks to protect the businesses of American companies in Nicaragua, so there is a component there that is very difficult to decipher when analyzing any foreign policy. 

Regarding El Salvador, Congress has said that we need more transparency. The last update of the Engel List was for the commissioners of the Access to Public Information Institute. In the case of Honduras, people close to Libre and the Xiomara Castro administration were sanctioned. In the case of Guatemala, which is a good example in quotes, a democratic transition was achieved through sanctions so that Bernardo Arévalo took office.

HoraCero: With Nicaragua, there is a bipartisan consensus, and as you say, we have seen sanctions and initiatives. Do you think that with El Salvador, the positions are more ambiguous?

Ana María Méndez: The case of El Salvador is very particular, I believe that within the same side of the Republican Party, there are divisions that are not so abysmal in positions but in a conference the presidential candidate Trump referred to Bukele in derogatory terms, making buffoonish comments about how Bukele had managed to reduce violence by sending criminals to the United States. A day later, a congressional delegation arrived in El Salvador. So it is a bit contradictory on the Republican side because El Salvador is the country in the Northern Triangle that has the most commercial and cooperation relations with China. That is one of the main concerns of the Republican government. Republicans have proposed a law called the American Investment Act, which would practically declare any country in the region that has both political and commercial relations with China as an adversary.

In the region, in the face of Trump’s arrival, red alerts are more on for Honduras due to how Xiomara Castro has proven to have links with authoritarian regimes and a narrative that is quite polarized and ideologized towards a more radical left.

HoraCero: Whoever wins, what we see in the future is quite restrictive immigration policies as the only form of containment. Do you think it will be like that?

Ana María Méndez: Yes, totally. Biden has practically restricted the right to asylum, which is a human right, and I believe that they have sought at all costs to make collaboration agreements with countries in the region to stop the migratory flow, which is something serious because it violates the human rights of migrants.

The United States has great cooperation through INL, which is the anti-narcotics agency that openly collaborates with all security ministries to reinforce border security and for the countries themselves to seek mechanisms to cut off migrants coming from the south. There have even been agreements with the Costa Rican government itself, which in recent years has become a more relevant actor in what has to do with migration.

At WOLA, we have recorded that since 2021, some 2,467,818 people left Central America, but in 2024, a reduction of 33.5% was seen. We believe that this can be attributed more to the closure of the Darien Gap and Biden’s severe asylum restriction policies, along with other policies, including the Mexican government.

HoraCero: We find ourselves in a very turbulent global context, and the United States is always at the center of decisions. We see it now with the war in Ukraine or the conflict in Gaza. Voters are concerned about many issues that go beyond Central American migration or a relationship with Central America, but I mention it to ask you: What priority place would the region occupy within this electoral panorama?

Ana María Méndez: Latin America occupies an important place now, in this electoral moment, due to the Latino vote; both candidates have tried to gain the support and sympathy of the Latino voter. The conversation does not turn to what they could do for the region, but rather how they can improve internal local conditions or US domestic policy that would benefit Latinos. So I think there are other priorities within the United States government, regardless of who is there. Unfortunately, Latin America is not a priority. How many visits has Secretary of State Antony Blinken made to any country in the region? It has been practically between Ukraine and Russia, that is, there has not been that level of work and commitment from the United States towards Latin America as it should have.