Developments in March 2025 show that the Venezuelan migration crisis is no longer just a humanitarian issue; it has also become a complex area of geopolitical rivalry, disinformation and the limits of international law. The deportation by the United States of America (USA) of hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua, not only increased tensions between Washington and Caracas, but also demonstrated the widespread tendency to associate migration with crime and use it for political purposes.
The deportation of members of the Venezuelan criminal organisation Tren de Aragua by US President Donald Trump, labelling them “terrorists” and “ alien enemies”, is seen as part of a remarkable transformation.[1] However, Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello rejected these allegations and put forward a different discourse in response to Trump’s statements. Cabello claimed that the organisation was neutralised in 2023 and there were no members of this organisation on the deportation list.[2]
These statements show that discourse, not reality, is the determining factor in the international arena. The categorisation of migrants as “criminals” or “terrorists” is becoming a strategy for states to legitimise their deportation policies. In this context, the US’s use of the discourse of “security threat” to legitimise the deportation process shows that migration management has evolved into a more and more securitised approach.
The Trump administration’s deportation orders against migrants are a rarely applied legal ground specific to extraordinary circumstances, such as “exceptional provisions applied on national security grounds”. On the one hand, the US judiciary intervened in this process and demanded that the planes be turned back, but deportations have already been carried out to a large extent. This situation demonstrates that how human rights can be secondary to national security considerations and how fragile the law, and in particular the migration law system, is.
Another noteworthy element is that the US does not directly deport migrants to Venezuela, but through El Salvador. This choice is thought to be motivated by both the weakness of direct diplomatic relations and the strategy of confining migrants to “transit zones”. The legal status of the migrants sent to the high-security prison in El Salvador remains unclear.
The US largely bases its deportation practices against Venezuelan migrants on its domestic law and prioritises the national security discourse in this process. However, this approach has been criticised both by the Venezuelan authorities and the international community, arguing that these practices constitute human rights violations and that migrants are criminalised and deported through discourse. Among the criticisms, serious allegations of violations of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under the US Constitution are particularly prominent.
Canada’s decision to sanction eight senior Venezuelan officials is interpreted as human rights violations and undermining democracy. However, Venezuela’s characterisation of these sanctions as “ridiculous” and “an attempt to curry favour with Washington” shows that a common position on the Venezuelan crisis at the regional and global level has not yet emerged.[3] This situation reveals that the international community’s approach to migration movements originating from Venezuela is also fragmented and shaped by political interests.
On the other hand, the fact that the plane in question landed in Caracas immediately after the US State Department’s statement that “there were no flights to Venezuela via Mexico today” indicates that disinformation works both ways.[4]Both the US and Venezuelan governments instrumentalise discourse to manipulate public opinion and strengthen their legitimacy, and the migrants’ situation becomes a political debate rather than a technical or humanitarian problem.
Addressing the experiences of migrants only in the context of security, law or politics makes their demands for rights based on human dignity invisible. However, each individual has a life story, traumas, losses and hopes for the future. This multi-layered reality reveals the necessity of more inclusive, rights-based policies that take into account individual conditions and rights-based policies against the abstracting and reductionist nature of mass deportation practices. It would be both legally and conscientiously more beneficial to consider migrants not only in terms of numbers, status or identity labels, but also as subjects, with the right to life and human dignity. Otherwise, the phenomenon of migration may become an area where humanitarian sensitivity is eroded rather than a technical management issue.
The fact that deportees are denied access to family members and legal representatives indicates that the trauma suffered by migrants is not only physical, but also deepening in its psychological and social dimensions. Especially in the case of individuals sent to high-security prisons in El Salvador, the process leaves families in a state of deep uncertainty and helplessness, unable to obtain information about the fate of their relatives. International human rights norms provide individuals with basic guarantees such as fair trial, information and legal assistance. However, in practice, migrants face serious limitations in accessing these rights.
To conclude, the mass migration movements around Venezuela point to a deep and multidimensional crisis that cannot be explained solely by economic problems or security concerns. This crisis necessitates a reassessment of the international system at both regional and global levels in terms of fundamental principles such as transparency, human rights and the rule of law. Caught between security-based deportation policies, which are often implemented without individual risk assessment, on the one hand, and discourses shaped by political uncertainties and lack of communication on the other, migrants are left in a vulnerable and uncertain position within the complexity of inter-state relations. This situation makes migration not only a political and administrative issue, but also a humanitarian test involving the moral responsibility of the international community.
[1] Sequera, Vivian. “Venezuela Minister Says No Tren de Aragua Members among US Deportees”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-minister-says-jailed-deportees-us-not-tied-tren-de-aragua-2025-03-21/, (Date of Access: 28.03.2025).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid
