Post

More from @DD_Geopolitics

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Apr 17

🇸🇻🧵 Erik Prince’s Offshoring Plan for U.S. Immigration Detention

Prince’s Proposal: A U.S.-Run “Mega-Prison” in El Salvador

Former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince has spearheaded a plan to privatize and offshore U.S. immigration detention by using El Salvador’s new mega-prison complex. The proposal obtained by POLITICO, calls for transporting up to 100,000 detainees from U.S. custody to El Salvador. Under the plan, Prince’s new entity (called “2USV”) would partner with El Salvador to round up “100,000 of the worst criminal offenders” currently in U.S. prisons, hold them initially at a 10,000-bed camp for processing, and then fly them to a Salvadoran prison for long-term incarceration. The targeted population is described as “criminal illegal aliens,” meaning non-citizens with criminal convictions, though Prince has also pitched involving U.S. citizens in some scenarios.

Under the proposal, private contractors would handle nearly every step of the operation. Prince’s team (comprised of military and defense contractors) seeks a lucrative government contract to locate, capture, detain, and deport these individuals on behalf of the U.S. To do this, 2USV asked for access to federal law enforcement and immigration databases to help identify deportable inmates across U.S. prisons. The contractors even want a role in immigration court proceedings: If a detainee lacks a final deportation order, 2USV would “facilitate a hearing before an immigration judge” to resolve any asylum claims. They also propose negotiating plea deals with U.S. prosecutors – offering prisoners reduced sentences if they agree not to fight deportation and accept removal orders. In effect, Prince’s group aims to replace or augment parts of ICE and immigration courts with a privately run enforcement arm, expediting removals outside the normal system.

2. Designating Salvadoran Soil as “U.S. Territory” – The Treaty of Cession

A centerpiece of the plan is a legal maneuver to circumvent U.S. legal constraints on deportation. Prince’s proposal includes sample language for a “Treaty of Cession” that would turn part of El Salvador’s prison complex into U.S. sovereign territory. In practical terms, El Salvador would cede a portion of the mega-prison to U.S. ownership, which the U.S. would then lease back to El Salvador to operate. Prince’s document argues that if this enclave is legally U.S. soil, then transferring prisoners there “would not be an extradition nor a deportation.” In other words, the inmates could be physically removed to El Salvador without legally classifying it as a removal to a foreign country. This attempt to exploit a jurisdictional loophole aims to avoid the legal hurdles that normally apply when deporting or extraditing individuals. By declaring the facility U.S. territory, Prince contends the transfer would be akin to moving a prisoner between domestic prisons – sidestepping requirements of extradition treaties or immigration removal proceedings.

Critically, the proposal urges the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to “suspend the ICE detention standards” for this facility. This indicates an intent to bypass U.S. regulations on the treatment of detainees once they are in El Salvador. If the enclave is U.S. territory but run by El Salvador, detainees might fall into a grey zone: U.S. custody in name, but without the usual oversight on conditions that ICE-run centers require. Indeed, the plan explicitly seeks to avoid “questions about detention standards” set by ICE and the Bureau of Prisons, presumably allowing far harsher conditions under the Salvadoran prison regime. Such an arrangement is unprecedented – effectively creating an offshore extraterritorial detention camp under U.S. jurisdiction but outsourced management.

Prince’s team and Salvadoran officials have already taken steps toward this plan. In August 2024, Prince toured El Salvador’s new Counter-Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) mega-prison and met with President Nayib Bukele. By March 2025, El Salvador’s Minister of Justice and Public Security, Gustavo Villatoro, signed a letter treating Prince’s group as an official “trade agent” for negotiating use of Salvadoran prisons to hold “foreign criminals.” . That letter touted the prison complex’s capacity to hold 40,000 prisoners immediately, with expansion up to 100,000 “criminal aliens” in the near future. In early 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (under a new Trump administration) visited El Salvador and confirmed Bukele’s “extraordinary gesture” – offering to accept deportees of any nationality, even violent U.S. citizens, into Salvadoran prisons. (The administration later insisted there is “no current plan” to deport U.S. citizens, which would plainly be illegal.) President Trump himself remarked he would “love” to send U.S. citizens to El Salvador’s prison if it saves money. These developments show significant political will – at least among certain U.S. officials – to use El Salvador’s prisons as an arm of U.S. immigration enforcement.

Bypassing Legal Constraints: Wartime Powers and “Not Deportation”

The driving motive behind the treaty-of-cession gambit is to exploit gaps in immigration and international law that normally protect detainees. Under standard practice, deporting someone from U.S. soil requires due process and a removal order. Extraditing a prisoner for punishment abroad requires a formal treaty and judicial process. Prince’s plan attempts to avoid both. By asserting the detainees haven’t technically left U.S. territory, officials could argue that court orders permitting removal from the U.S. aren’t needed at the point of transfer. In Prince’s own words, “transferring a prisoner to such a facility would not be an Extradition nor a Deportation” – it becomes a mere “relocation” of a U.S. held prisoner. This is meant to prevent detainees (and their lawyers) from invoking protections that would normally apply if the government tried to send them to a foreign country.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that even under wartime powers (discussed below), noncitizens must be given “an opportunity to challenge their deportations before removing them from the country.” If detainees are whisked to El Salvador, the administration might argue they have not yet been “removed from the country,” because they remain on a legal patch of “U.S. soil.” This hair-splitting could be used to delay or complicate judicial oversight – effectively creating a legal black hole like past U.S. extraterritorial detention sites. Human rights observers have noted that the Venezuelan migrants already sent to CECOT are in “legal limbo” – the U.S. claims they are no longer in its custody, yet El Salvador hasn’t charged them with any crime, leaving them with no clear legal jurisdiction to appeal to. As Noah Bullock of the NGO Cristosal describes it, “they’re in a judicial black hole.” This is precisely the kind of outcome the plan is designed to achieve for a much larger population.

Prince’s proposal also invokes extraordinary executive powers to justify mass transfers. It explicitly references President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a centuries-old wartime law giving the president authority to detain or deport nationals of hostile countries during armed conflict. In late 2024 and early 2025, the Trump administration tried to repurpose this Act to rapidly expel groups of migrants (for instance, labeling hundreds of Venezuelans as members of a criminal gang aligned with a “foreign enemy”) . Prince’s team argued that the El Salvador scheme would help the administration “get around potential legal hurdles” with using the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime. Shipping detainees to CECOT was seen as a way to alleviate logistical and legal challenges that arose when trying to house them at Guantánamo Bay or remove them to countries that refused to accept them. Notably, Guantánamo was already being readied to hold up to 30,000 migrants under separate Trump plans, but a federal judge blocked at least one transfer of Venezuelan detainees to Guantánamo, forcing their deportation back to Venezuela instead. El Salvador’s prisons thus became Plan B for a transnational detention system. Prince’s document claims “this contract will solve the legal issues pertaining to removing criminal aliens” while enhancing the government’s capacity to locate and deport them.

Despite these maneuvers, serious legal challenges are expected. The proposal itself acknowledges it is “highly likely that this effort will be tested judicially. Constitutional and international law experts have already raised red flags. For instance, deporting U.S. citizens to a foreign prison would be flatly unlawful, effectively a form of banishment or exile, which is barred by the U.S. Constitution. Even President Trump and Secretary Rubio have conceded there are “legalities” and “We have a constitution” that prevent simply expelling Americans. The U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff urged the administration to reject Bukele’s offer outright, warning that “even entertaining this offer”abandons core legal principles. Furthermore, U.S. law (the First Step Act of 2018) requires federal inmates to be held in facilities “as close as practicable” to their home, generally within 500 miles. Sending U.S. prisoners to El Salvador, thousands of miles away, would violate this law meant to preserve inmates’ access to family and counsel. Finally, the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment would almost certainly be invoked if Americans were forced to serve sentences in the notoriously harsh conditions of Salvadoran prisons. In short, while the plan tries to exploit jurisdictional loopholes, it faces a gauntlet of legal barriers, from constitutional rights to statutory mandates, that courts and advocates are already preparing to enforce.

Read 5 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Feb 6

Columbia Jounralism Review is worried about "independent" journalism abroad.... These funds are typically channeled through USAID’s Media Assistance Programs, Democracy and Governance Grants, and civil society initiatives.

Let's take a dive into some of these media outlets now worried about where their next paycheck will come from.....

OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project)

💰 Funding:
• $5.5M+ from USAID & NED since 2016
• Direct funding from Open Society Foundations (George Soros)
• Partnered with U.S. State Department, UK Foreign Office, and EU-backed institutions

What they do:
OCCRP claims to investigate corruption worldwide, but their targets are overwhelmingly U.S. geopolitical rivals—while corruption in pro-NATO and U.S.-backed regimes is ignored.

🔎 Major Examples:

1. Targeting Serbia – 2020 Smear Campaign
• Ahead of Serbia’s 2020 elections, OCCRP ran a series of “investigations” into President Aleksandar Vučić, accusing him of corruption and ties to organized crime.
• Meanwhile, OCCRP ignored massive corruption in U.S.-allied Kosovo, where PM Albin Kurti was cracking down on opposition media.

2. Ukraine – Covering for Zelensky While Attacking Russia
• OCCRP played a key role in pushing anti-Russian narratives after 2014, linking Russian officials to financial scandals while shielding Ukraine’s U.S.-backed government.
• Exposed Russia’s “Laundromat” financial networks but failed to investigate how Western banks helped Ukraine launder billions in aid money.
• Panama Papers (2016): OCCRP highlighted Putin’s alleged offshore ties but covered up Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s involvement, despite clear evidence.

3. Russia & Navalny – Coordinated Attacks
• Collaborated with Alexei Navalny’s team to produce the “Putin’s Palace” documentary, which was later debunked.
• Received direct funding from USAID & NED during this period.
• OCCRP ignored U.S.-linked oligarchs in Ukraine and London, who were laundering billions through Western banks.

4. Azerbaijan & Georgia – Selective Corruption Investigations
• OCCRP exposed financial corruption in Azerbaijan, aligning with U.S. interests to weaken Baku’s ties to Russia.
• In Georgia, OCCRP’s reports always focus on attacking the ruling Georgian Dream party (which resists NATO membership) while ignoring corruption in the U.S.-backed opposition.

5. Latin America – Defending U.S. Interests
• OCCRP’s investigations in Venezuela focused solely on corruption linked to the Maduro government while ignoring opposition figures stealing U.S. “humanitarian aid.”
• No deep investigations into how CIA-backed Juan Guaidó stole $40M+ in foreign aid and funneled it to his cronies.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)

💰 $129M+ annually from the U.S. government (via USAID & NED).
• In 2019, USAID gave $6M specifically to counter “Russian disinformation” in Central Asia.
• Receives funding via the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which is directly controlled by the U.S. government.

What they do: RFE/RL operates in former Soviet states, Iran, and China to push anti-government narratives under the guise of “independent journalism.” Its purpose is not journalism but to undermine governments opposed to U.S. foreign policy while ignoring corruption in pro-Western states.

🔎 Major Examples:

1. RFE/RL in Belarus (2020) – Supporting Regime Change
• Actively promoted opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and framed the 2020 protests as a “democratic revolution.”
• Published over 1,200 articles and videos covering anti-Lukashenko protests while censoring any mention of foreign involvement.
• USAID-backed RFE journalists openly coordinated with Belarusian opposition Telegram channels like NEXTA, which helped organize protests.

2. RFE/RL in Russia
• Heavily promoted Alexei Navalny for years, presenting him as a legitimate opposition leader while ignoring his Western funding ties.
• Funded reports linking Putin to the so-called “Panama Papers” in 2016—despite U.S. allies like Ukraine’s Poroshenko appearing in the leaks.
• In 2021, RFE/RL refused to register as a “foreign agent” in Russia, despite being a U.S. government-funded entity.

3. RFE/RL in Iran
• Operates under Radio Farda, which spreads pro-Western content and amplifies anti-Iranian protests while ignoring U.S. sanctions’ impact.
• In 2019, RFE/RL repeatedly ran false reports claiming Iran was “collapsing under protests” while downplaying U.S. interference.
• Heavily promotes the exiled MKO (MEK) terrorist group, which is funded by the U.S. and wants regime change in Iran.

4. RFE/RL in Ukraine – Running NATO Talking Points
• Since 2014, it has been a major player in anti-Russian propaganda, helping justify U.S. intervention.
• Spread the Snake Island hoax in 2022, claiming Ukrainian soldiers had “heroically died” (later proven false when they surrendered).
• Regularly publishes articles blaming Russia for every Ukrainian failure, while whitewashing Ukrainian government corruption.

5. RFE/RL in Kazakhstan
• During the 2022 unrest in Kazakhstan, RFE/RL provided round-the-clock coverage, portraying the protests as a “popular uprising” rather than a foreign-backed coup attempt.
• After Kazakhstan cracked down on USAID-backed NGOs, RFE/RL framed it as an attack on press freedom rather than exposing foreign influence.

Read 14 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Feb 3

🇸🇾 USAID FUNNELED $15B INTO SYRIA TO OVERTHROW ASSAD

“NGOs are being used to destabilize Syria. They pretend to help, but in reality, they work for foreign intelligence services.”
— Bashar al-Assad (2018)

For over a decade, USAID, NED, and Western-backed NGOs played a central role in the Syrian war, financing opposition groups, manufacturing propaganda, and running intelligence operations under the cover of “humanitarian aid.” In 2024, after years of Western-backed subversion, sanctions, and military pressure, Assad was finally overthrown.

NGOs as a Weapon

USAID:
• Funneled $15+ billion into Syria while secretly funding opposition networks and anti-government operations.
• Bankrolled the White Helmets, a group exposed for collaborating with al-Qaeda and staging propaganda videos to justify U.S. intervention.
• Provided logistical support to opposition groups in exile, helping to create a U.S.-backed shadow government.

National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – “Civil Society” as a Cover for Destabilization:
• Financed Barada TV, an opposition media outlet based in Washington, D.C., to broadcast anti-Assad propaganda.
• Funded “pro-democracy” NGOs that later channeled resources to jihadist factions, including the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
• Supported exiled Syrian activists, preparing them to take power once Assad was removed.

Open Society Foundations (OSF) Soros in Syria:
• Pushed anti-Assad narratives in global media, portraying the war as a grassroots uprising rather than a Western-backed coup.
• Coordinated with U.S. intelligence-backed groups to facilitate regime change efforts.
• Advocated for mass migration policies that pressured European nations to accept millions of Syrian refugees—a crisis directly caused by the U.S.-backed war.

Assad's Efforts:

✅ 2014 – Expelled USAID-backed NGOs after exposing their financial ties to insurgents.
✅ 2016 – Revealed the White Helmets’ collaboration with jihadists, warning of Western-backed disinformation.
✅ 2018 – Publicly accused the U.K. Foreign Office and USAID of funding anti-government propaganda operations.
✅ 2023 – Secured post-war reconstruction deals with Russia and China to minimize Western influence.

But despite these efforts, the U.S. and its allies never abandoned their mission to overthrow Assad.

Syria was one of the most extensive USAID-backed regime change operations of the 21st century—and this time, they succeeded.

https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1886496716691763601

https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1886496716691763601

Read 4 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Sep 16, 2024

🇺🇸 Trump shooter has been identified as Ryan Wesley Routh according to several US media outlets.

Going through his social media is just what you would expect. 🕳️🐇

🧵

Read 19 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

May 1, 2024

🇬🇪 Foreign agents and Soros slaves are gathering to protest in Tblisi, Georgia after the government passed the "foreign agents" bill on its second reading.

They are protesting a bill that will make any independent NGO and media organisation receiving more than 20 percent of its funding from abroad to register as an "organisation pursuing the interests of a foreign power".

They don't want to reveal their funding..... Georgia is NGO heaven.

WHERE ARE VICKY NULAND AND SAMANTHA POWER?

https://twitter.com/dd_geopolitics/status/1633192834399444992

Literally a year ago 🤣🤣

https://twitter.com/dd_geopolitics/status/1633192834399444992

Read 5 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Dec 24, 2023

🇺🇦 "Slava Ukraïni!" is a fascist slogan first uttered in the court house in Warsaw after 12 members of the OUN (including Stepan Bandera) conspired to assassinate Polish Interior Minister Branislaw Pieracki.

As one of the female defendants, Svientsits'ka was passing by the dock, she went towards the defendants, raised her right hand, and shouted, "Slava Ukraïni!"

The defendant Karpynets' stood up, raised his arm, and answered, "Slava Ukraïni!" This is apparently the first recorded fascist salute that OUN members performed in public.

Later....

After the defendants were all found guilty, Bandera shouted, "Iron and Blood will decide between us."

"Slava Ukraïni!" They responded in unison.