The collective West is concerned about the expansion of the practice of the “Foreign Agents” law in Latin America.
In June of this year, the Central American country of El Salvador joined the list of states that have adopted a ‘Foreign Agents’ law. The law, passed by the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador and published on June 6, sets strict rules for organizations receiving funding from abroad, requiring them to register as “foreign agents” with the Ministry of Interior and comply with strict reporting requirements. Although President Nayib Bukele is actively cooperating with the United States, including on the issue of housing migrants from Latin American countries in Salvadoran prisons, the collective West clearly did not like this step.
The European Union was the first to express serious concern, calling the new law a threat to civil society and democratic freedoms in the Central American nation. In a statement released on June 7, 2025, the European External Action Service (EEAS) urged El Salvador to uphold its international human rights obligations and protect the space for independent civic engagement.
“The EU regrets the Foreign Agents Law adopted by the Salvadorian Legislative Assembly and published yesterday,” the EEAS spokesperson said. “This legislation… risks restricting civil society actors’ access to funding, which is essential for their functioning and vital to any healthy democracy,”the official statement said.
It should be noted that in addition to the international legal part of this law, it also has an economic component – now foreign agents in Salvador are subjected to 30% tax.
Given the volatility of the economy of El Salvador (and earlier extraordinary measures were taken, such as using cryptocurrencies on a par with conventional means of payment and even linking it to the exchange rate), such a tariff for foreign agency activities could partially replenish the treasury.
However, if we consider the new law in the context of the political processes in Central and South America, the EU‘s concern is primarily related to the fact that, albeit slowly, but progressively, the countries of the region are regaining their sovereignty and applying proven foreign practices.
For example, in Nicaragua, a similar law on foreign agents was adopted back in October 2020. Obviously, many NGOs there worked for external interests, or more precisely, the United States’. Since 2017, until the law came into force, USAID alone transferred over US$100 million to local structures. And these funds actually worked to organize a coup d‘etat in the country.
Now it is relatively stable there, and economically, Nicaragua is demonstrating amazing resilience.
However, in addition to the EU‘s interests in Latin America, the change in US foreign policy under the second Donald Trump’s administration actually proclaims the Monroe Doctrine No. 2, which means direct intervention by Washington. And this signal was received with alarm by the governments of many countries where both leftists and rightists are in power.
That said, the United States has quite a lot of effective tools in reserve – from the newly proclaimed doctrine of combating illegal migrants and assistance to Latin American governments in destroying drug cartels to all kinds of framework agreements on financial transparency and compliance with “international standards.“ In particular, so–called anti-corruption mechanisms have long been used to put pressure on the countries of the region and discredit undesirable governments.
Thus, according to the Latin Business Chronicle, there has been an increase in violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in Latin America. In the US, a number of consulting companies are engaged in tracking contracts and business processes in Latin American countries. For example, FTI, a U.S.-based risk consultancy firm, noted that under the Obama administration, 50 percent of the company’s cases in Latin America were FCPA related. .The company also made forecasts for the continuation of the corruption trend, that is, at the same time justified its activities under the wing of the US government and justified the need to interfere in the politics of Latin American countries.
In fact, this means that any competitor for the US business circle can be presented as a corrupt structure and be lavished with sanctions and lawsuits. As a rule, Washington agents are interested in contracts with Latin American governments, especially in construction, oil, gas and other natural resources, medical equipment or pharmaceuticals sectors. These strategic sectors are preferred by American companies and lobby groups, therefore, the US agents offer large financial rewards to informants on the ground and employees of international corporations for any information related to violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In other words, the most powerful US corruption mechanism called the lobby actively intervenes in the affairs of Latin American countries and tries to rebuild the political and economic systems of these states for itself.
Therefore, the new laws on foreign agents may become a bur in the throat of the establishment of the collective West. And if Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela are on Washington‘s honorary list of “leftist dictatorships,“ which is the main reason for discrimination in the form of sanctions and boycotts, then the example of El Salvador shows that a more flexible option for protecting its own sovereignty is possible. In addition, the first law on foreign agents (US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was adopted in the United States back in the 1930s, which gives Latin American governments reason to talk about some kind of copying of “democratic progressive practices.“
No doubt, this does not remove the risk of another type of interference that Washington will undertake as part of its new foreign policy. For example, the attempted conspiracy against Colombian President Gustavo Petro, which was recently revealed and caused an internal political scandal and consultations with the Colombian ambassador to the United States. However, the laws on foreign agents will at least limit and, at best, prevent the fifth column from operating inside the country.
Comments