El Salvador president threatens to send imprisoned gangsters to Paris Fashion Week
El Salvador's president said he would send inmates of the country's notorious mega-prison to France in the wake of a Paris Fashion Week show critiquing the government's treatment of the prisoners.
Nayib Bukele criticised a collection debuted by Willy Chavarria, a Mexican-American designer, featuring models wearing outfits resembling inmate uniforms at El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot).
The maximum-security prison was opened in 2023 on the orders of Mr Bukele as part of his war against organised crime, but human rights groups have raised concerns about poor conditions and a lack of due process.
Responding to a message online saying Mr Chavarria's show was a tribute to Cecot prisoners, the El Salvador president wrote: 'We're ready to ship them all to Paris whenever we get the green light from the French government.'
Mr Bukele's press team said the president's response showed his 'firm stance against the attempt to glorify criminality'.
Mr Chavarria's Paris Fashion Week show opened with 35 men walking down the runway wearing white T-shirts and shorts that had been made in partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union.
The models then dropped into kneeling positions with their heads bowed, recalling images which emerged from El Salvador in the months after the government adopted a harsher approach to gangs.
Others wore T-shirts emblazoned with the word 'America' upside-down, which fashion critics speculated was a commentary on Mr Chavarria's belief the country is moving backwards.
The designer also sent invitations for his Spring 2026 show in the form of replica immigration summons, with the documents certifying readers' 'right to exist', before asking them to attend for a 'presentation of humanity'.
Tens of thousands of suspected gang members have been rounded up and incarcerated in El Salvador since a state of emergency was declared in March 2022 following a spike in murders and violent crimes.
Hailing the success of the crackdown, the country's government reported that the homicide rate fell by nearly 70 per cent in 2023.
However, concerns have been raised about conditions inside Cecot, as well as the possibility that some of those imprisoned may be innocent of gang involvement.
Human Rights Watch claimed inmates were denied communication with relatives or lawyers, with reports claiming prisoners only leave their cells for 30 minutes a day.
Alongside roughly 15,000 domestic prisoners, Cecot also holds more than 200 Venezuelans deported from the United States, accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang.
The Trump administration paid Mr Bukele's government millions of dollars to lock up the migrants, claiming they were criminals and gang members.
Donald Trump invoked little-used wartime legislation in March to fly the migrants to El Salvador without court hearings.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court to consider Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act
On Monday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans will consider those questions, as well, in what is likely to be the decisive legal battle over Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The hearing, before the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, will almost certainly reprise legal arguments that the Trump administration and lawyers for the Venezuelan men have made repeatedly in lower courts. But the 5th Circuit's case is likely to be the first to reach the Supreme Court, where it will get a full hearing on the substantive question of whether Trump has used the act unlawfully. Advertisement Passed in 1798 as the nascent United States was threatened by war with France, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president expansive powers to detain and expel members of a hostile foreign nation. But the act grants those powers only in times of declared war or during what it describes as an invasion or a 'predatory incursion.' Advertisement From the start, the administration has sought to use the law in an unusual way, turning it against scores of Venezuelan men accused of belonging to the street gang Tren de Aragua, which Trump has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The president and his aides have repeatedly maintained that the men were not mere criminals but were working hand in glove with the Venezuelan government. Moreover, they have argued that their presence on US soil was tantamount to an invasion by a hostile foreign country. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been representing the men, has scoffed at those claims in case after case, saying that they have no connection to reality. Lawyers for the ACLU have pointed out that mass migration, regardless of its scale, is not the same as an invasion. They have also argued that there is no conclusive evidence that their clients, many of whom have no criminal record, are working for anyone, let alone for the Venezuelan government. So far, a majority of federal courts have agreed with the ACLU, deciding that Trump invoked the act unlawfully and that his vision of the Venezuelans posing a military threat to the United States did not line up with the facts. Two courts, however, have sided with the administration, essentially arguing that the White House should be granted wide latitude in conducting foreign affairs, especially when they concern a gang that has been deemed a terrorist organization. The ACLU could face an uphill battle in its effort to win over the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. But no matter who prevails in the oral arguments set for Monday, the case is likely to move on to the Supreme Court. Advertisement The case took an unusual path in reaching the 5th Circuit. In mid-April, the ACLU filed an emergency lawsuit in US District Court in Abilene, Texas, after suddenly getting news that the Trump administration was preparing to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport a group of Venezuelans being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in nearby Anson. The move to expel the men, the ACLU maintained, appeared to be an opportunistic effort to bypass orders barring similar removals from courts in New York, Colorado, and another part of Texas, which covered only those local jurisdictions. After the district court judge in Abilene failed to act quickly, the ACLU filed a flurry of follow-up petitions, asking the 5th Circuit and then the Supreme Court to help the men at Bluebonnet. The lawyers argued that the men were in imminent danger of being shipped off to El Salvador, where an earlier group of Venezuelan immigrants were sent in March and remain today. In an unusual ruling issued well after midnight, the Supreme Court ultimately put the deportations from Bluebonnet temporarily on hold. The justices declined to weigh in on the larger question of whether Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful, saying only that the government had skirted due process by failing to give the Venezuelan men enough time and opportunity to contest their removal. Last month, the Supreme Court issued another decision in the case, maintaining the freeze on the deportations and sending the matter back to the 5th Circuit, with marching orders on how to proceed in the upcoming hearing. Advertisement The appellate judges were instructed to consider two issues: the substantive question of whether Trump's use of the act was legal in the first place and a narrower one about how much — and what sort — of warning immigrants should be given before being expelled under the law. This article originally appeared in
Associated Press
4 hours ago
- Associated Press
Star witness against Kilmar Abrego Garcia won't be deported, court records show
WASHINGTON (AP) — Court records show that the Trump administration has agreed to spare from deportation a key witness in the federal prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in exchange for his cooperation in the case. Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, 38, has been convicted of smuggling migrants and illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. He also pleaded guilty to 'deadly conduct' in connection with a separate incident where he drunkenly fired a gun in a Texas community. Records reviewed by The Washington Post show that Hernandez Reyes has been released early from federal prison to a halfway house and has been given permission to stay in the U.S. for at least a year. Prosecutors have identified Hernandez Reyes as the 'first cooperator' in the case against Abrego, according to court filings. The Department of Homeland Security maintains that Hernandez owned the SUV that Abrego Garcia was allegedly using to smuggle migrants when the Tennessee Highway Patrol stopped him in 2022. That traffic stop is at the center of the criminal investigation against Abrego Garcia. Hernandez Reyes is among a handful of cooperating witnesses who could help the administration deport Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia, a construction worker who had been living in Maryland, became a flashpoint over Trump's hard-line immigration policies when he was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in March. Facing mounting pressure and a Supreme Court order, the administration returned him this month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.' On Friday, attorneys for Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge in Tennessee to delay his release from jail because of 'contradictory statements' by the administration over whether or not he'll be deported upon release. A federal judge in Nashville has been preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial on human smuggling charges. But she's been holding off over concerns that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would swiftly detain him and try to deport him again. Abrego Garcia's attorneys are now asking the judge to continue to detain him following statements by administration officials 'because we cannot put any faith in any representation made on this issue by' the Justice Department. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty.
Fox News
7 hours ago
- Fox News
Zohran Mamdani repeatedly pressed on whether he condemns 'globalize the intifada' term in NBC interview
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani was repeatedly pressed by NBC News host Kristen Welker on Sunday about why he doesn't want to condemn the phrase, "globalize the intifada," insisting that he didn't want to "police language." "I want to ask you about an issue that has divided New Yorkers in recent weeks. You were recently asked about the term 'globalize the intifada,' if it makes you uncomfortable. In that moment, you did not condemn the phrase. Now, just so folks understand, it is a phrase that many people hear as a call to violence against Jews," Welker said. "So I want to give you the opportunity to respond here and now, do you condemn that phrase, 'globalize the intifada?'" Mandami, a Democratic socialist, defeated former New York governor Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral primary last week. "That's not language that I use. The language that I use, the language that I will continue to use to lead this city, is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights," Mamdani responded. "And ultimately, that's what is the foundation of so much of my politics, the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people and that includes Israelis and Palestinians alike." Welker asked Mamdani once again if he condemned the phrase. Mamdani said he had spoken to several Jewish New Yorkers regarding their concerns about antisemitism and added, "I don't believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech." "Ultimately, what I think I need to show is the ability to not only talk about something but to tackle it and to make clear there is no room for antisemitism in the city. We have to root out that bigotry and, ultimately, we do that through the actions, and that is the mayor I will be, one that protects Jewish New Yorkers and lives up to that commitment through the work that I do," he continued. Welker asked again why he wouldn't just "condemn" the phrase, citing those who care about the language and feel concerned over the phrase. "My concern is, to start to walk down the line of language and making clear what language I believe is permissible or impermissible, takes me into a place similar to that of the president, who is looking to do those very kinds of things, putting people in jail for writing an op-ed, putting them in jail for protesting. Ultimately, it is not language that I use. It is language I understand there are concerns about, and what I will do is showcase my vision for the city through my words and my actions," Mamdani said. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., called on Mamdani to denounce the phrase on Thursday during a heated exchange with WNYC radio host Brian Lehrer. During an interview with Stephen Colbert ahead of the primary, Mamdani was also pressed on antisemitism in New York. "Does the State of Israel have the right to exist?" Colbert asked the 33-year-old Democratic socialist. "Yes," Mamdani responded. "Like all nations, I believe it has the right to exist and a responsibility also to uphold international law."
