REINFORCING PUSH FACTORS IN THE NORTHERN
TRIANGLE: AN INVESTIGATION OF TRUMP’S ATTEMPTS
TO DETER IMMIGRATION THROUGH HUMANITARIAN
AID REDUCTION
by
CAITLIN SCOTT
A THESIS
Presented to the Department of International Studies 
and the Robert D. Clark Honors College 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 
Bachelor of Arts
June 2020
An Abstract of the Thesis of
Caitlin Scott for the degree of Bachelor of Arts
in the Department of International Studies to be taken June 2020
Title: Reinforcing Push Factors in the Northern Triangle: An Investigation of Trump’s
Attempts to Deter Immigration through Humanitarian Aid Reduction
Approved: _____________Dr. Galen Martin_________________
        Primary Thesis Advisor
The Northern Triangle of Central America has long been a major source of 
immigration to the United States. In April of 2019, the Trump Administration 
announced its intentions to freeze U.S. foreign aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and 
Honduras in an overall strategy to punish the Central American nations and encourage 
them to employ their own immigration deterrence methods. However, concerns 
persisted regarding whether ending funding for humanitarian aid projects would 
effectively mitigate migration, when oftentimes these programs serve to lessen 
prominent push factors in the Northern Triangle and encourage reinvestment in local 
communities. After a thorough literature review of the related academic field and an 
examination of the root causes and historical context influencing the intense push 
factors in the NTCA, diverse stories from stakeholders are compiled in order to present 
an overarching view of the impacts of President Trump’s aid policies. Interviews with 
migrants and aid beneficiaries, excerpts from Central American newspapers, 
conversations with aid workers, and statements from U.S. politicians point to the 
ii
negative repercussions of aid reduction. Human perspectives of individuals closest to 
the situation overwhelming describe the intensification of push factors without the 
support of USAID funding.
iii
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to the members of my 
committee, Dr. Galen Martin, Dr. Mark Carey, and Dr. Erin Beck. This process has 
been complicated and convoluted at times, yet they never wavered in their support for 
me and belief in my ability to ultimately succeed. Since my first term on campus in 
International Studies 101, Dr. Martin has facilitated my engagement with fascinating 
world issues; he ultimately took on a large role as my Primary Thesis Advisor. I am 
thankful for each and every calm, thoughtful answer he provided during panicked 
advising meetings. My CHC Representative Dr. Mark Carey guided me through thesis 
orientation and supported me through his Inside-Out Prison Exchange class that 
changed my understanding of what makes a meaningful education. His care for his 
students is obvious and a reflection of the approach of the Honors College as a whole. 
Finally, my Second Reader Dr. Beck joined my committee late in the process with grace
and generosity that I am extremely grateful for.
Generally, I would like to thank the departments and programs I have been 
involved with, including the Clark Honors College, International Studies, Spanish, 
Nonprofit Administration, and Second Language Teaching and Acquisition. 
Specifically, Miriam Jordan deserves a big thank you for all the time and energy she 
puts into the Honor College thesis program. I could not have done this work without her
gentle prompting and patience.
I would also like to thank every professor I have had the privilege of working 
with the past few years. While some are mentioned with more depth later on, I am 
genuinely appreciative of the work they all do and the way it has made a difference in 
iv
my life. I would not be writing these acknowledgements or this thesis without an overall
excellent education and professors who made my personal growth their mission. With 
that in mind I would like to include the names of additional professors who became 
influential in my studies: Dr. Andy Halvorsen, Professor Paula Ellister, Dr. Devin 
Grammon, Professor Heather Quarles, Dr. Louise Bishop, Dr. Rebecca Lindner, Dr. 
Cheyney Ryan, and Dr. Derrick Hindery.
I would additionally like to thank all my friends and family that have served as a
support system during this process and college in general. My accomplishments would 
be nothing without people to share them with. Even though I cannot mention the name 
of every person who has made a difference in my life, please know that any gesture, big
or small, was appreciated and cherished. Specifically, thank you to Charlotte Preston for
being the most loyal friend and always wanting the best for me. Thank you to Jenny 
Capeloto and Courtney Bourquin for somehow always knowing when I needed fun 
distractions and when I needed diligent study buddies. I would like to thank my 
grandparents for their love and financial support; I hope I have made them all proud 
with this work. I would especially like to thank my grandpa; even though he cannot read
this thesis himself, I know he would have loved to pour over every single page with the 
same interest he showed all my other academic endeavors. I also want to thank my 
sister Alexa for always being there for me. I genuinely do not know what I would do 
without her love and understanding in my life.
Finally, I want to thank my parents, Matt and Laurette Scott. There really is no 
good way to put into words everything they have done for me, not just during the thesis 
process, not only in college, but throughout my whole life. They have prioritized my 
v
education since the moment I was born, and for that I can never repay them. I am 
forever grateful for their generosity, support, and love.
vi
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Project Origins and Personal Reflections 1
Chapter 2: Terminology and Justification 9
Chapter 3: Literature Review 15
Chapter 4: Research Question and Methods 27
Chapter 5: Introduction 30
Chapter 6: Historical Context and Root Causes 37
Chapter 7: Impacts of Trump’s Aid Decisions 48
Introduction 48
Migrant Interviews and Case Studies 52
Northern Triangle Newspapers 57
Aid Workers and Organizations 61
U.S. Government Officials 63
Conclusion 64
Chapter 8: Conclusion 66
Works Cited 69
vii
Chapter 1: Project Origins and Personal Reflections
Although this could be considered an unconventional way to begin a formal 
thesis, I strongly believe in the importance of including the origin of this project and the
sources behind my personal investment in the topic. Due to the spread of COVID-19 
and the respective impacts this virus has caused across the world, this thesis process has
been altered and adapted for the safety of all involved. While I find these precautions 
both critical and inevitable, I now find it especially important to reflect on my personal 
journey as I will not have the platform of an in-person thesis defense to explain the 
origins of my thesis. This research has been many years in the making and while much 
has changed globally during this extended timeframe, my passion and concern for the 
Northern Triangle has not. While one of my largest regrets has been my inability to 
travel to the region and conduct my own interviews, I have attempted to make up for 
this short-coming by doing thorough research as well as being open and willing to 
accept whatever conclusions might be revealed. Furthermore, I have had opportunities 
to attend prestigious conferences and take meaningful courses that prioritized 
international issues and allowed for independently directed study. These experiences 
have both introduced and expanded upon my knowledge of the impacts of President 
Trump’s aid policies in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, thus allowing this thesis
to grow and flourish. While these specific events are challenging to formally cite within
this paper, this education both inside and outside the classroom has been too valuable to
exclude from the narrative of this project. In order to contextualize the importance of 
this extended interest turned thesis, I intend to describe some of the experiences and 
thoughts that have been the most impactful for this thesis project.
My connection with the topic of Central American migrants specifically began 
in the Fall of 2015 during my senior year at Jesuit High School in Portland, Oregon. I 
attended the Ignatian Family Teach-in for Justice, a Catholic social justice conference 
specifically rooted in honoring Jesuit priests and their companions who were martyred 
in El Salvador in 1989 (“Ignatian”). This gathering takes place yearly in Washington, 
D.C., joining representatives from Jesuit institutions across the country to engage in 
learning and advocacy. For multiple days, attendees listen to expert and peer speakers 
discuss various social justice concerns though a Catholic lens. Then, different school 
groups advocate on Capitol Hill about specific social justice concerns to their respective
senators’ offices.
At first, I was not selected to participate in the Ignatian Family Teach-in for 
Justice. Acceptance was extremely competitive at my school and after the application 
process, I was told that I had been placed on a waitlist. However, a few weeks into the 
group’s preparation meetings, someone could no longer continue with the time 
commitment. I received a call and was thrown into the process. Advocacy groups had 
been formed based on three different topics: Humane immigration reform, 
environmental justice, and human rights in Central America. Students were already 
busy researching, developing their arguments to present to our senators and 
representatives, and creating leave behind documents. Although overwhelmed, I felt 
extremely grateful to again have an opportunity to participate, and willing stepped into 
whatever role I was offered. This just so happened to be with the group arguing in 
support of human rights in Central America. I had no previous experience with the 
topic; however, I dove into catching up on research, slowly but surely educating myself 
2
on the complex human rights abuses taking place in the region and the role the United 
States government plays in their perpetuation. Ultimately, my group members and I 
wrote our leave behind document for Senator Jeff Merkley, beginning with the 
following statement of purpose: “Our request is to end harmful interventions that further
militarize Central American societies, while meaningfully addressing violence, 
impunity, and rights violations that compel displacement and migration” (Cartasegna). 
The presentation to Senator Merkley’s staff itself actually proved to be fairly 
anticlimactic; unlike some students from schools in more conservative regions that dealt
with disagreement and challenges from their representatives, our staffer essentially told 
us that Senator Merkley already agreed with these views and remained willing to 
support Central American human rights. However, being able to articulate this stance 
and present it in a government office in our national capitol, truly jumpstarted my 
interest in this topic that went on the morph and develop further over the past several 
years.
My formal classes in high school and college have also allowed me the 
opportunity to discover my passions and independently focus on the Northern Triangle 
topic. During my senior year of high school at Jesuit, I took an International Studies 
elective. Mr. Flamoe became one of my favorite teachers, due to his passion for 
teaching what many just considered a fun, easy class to pad their senior year schedule. 
We covered everything from the conflict in Syria to the Paris climate change agreement 
to the oil crisis in Venezuela, sampling a new world issue every week. I looked forward 
to that class every day, anticipating the materials that had never been made a priority in 
my traditional core courses. My love of this class specifically inspired me to enter the 
3
University of Oregon as a Pre-International Studies major. I felt increasingly confident 
in this choice when I took INTL 101 fall of my first year on campus with Dr. Galen 
Martin, as the format very much mirrored my treasured high school introductory course.
Not only did this course introduce me to my future primary thesis advisor, but our final 
research assignment allowed me to delve further into the conflicts rampant in El 
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Our class was specifically tasked with looking at a
variety of sources, including popular press, web sources, academic journals, and books, 
and determining their usefulness in order to investigate an international issue of our 
choosing. I fell back upon an issue that I already new I had passion and curiosity for; I 
decided to specifically look into root causes of Central American migration to the 
United States.
I went on to cover variations of this topic in two other independent projects for 
International Studies classes while working on competing my International Studies 
major. In a final research paper for Dr. Derrick Hindery’s INTL 420, I first became 
interested in push factors stemming from the Northern Triangle and set out to discover 
more. I ultimately argued that gang activity and the related dangers such as homicide, 
violence against women and children, and extortion, as strengthened by U.S. foreign 
policy and perpetuated by weak and corrupt government and law enforcement, merited 
the most attention in this complicated crisis. In Prof. Nick Macdonald’s INTL 424, I 
shared my interests with a group for a collaborative paper, where this time we provided 
policy proposals for combatting the refugee situation from the Northern Triangle. 
Discussing previously attempted interventions and collaborating with my partners to 
4
propose our own unique solutions allowed me to explore a new perspective and 
continue to widen my horizons in relation to this field.
Around this time, I began to seriously think about my thesis and consider what 
topic I should pursue. The Northern Triangle and its accompanying refugee issues stood
out automatically due to the time and research I had already invested. Through my 
thesis orientation with Dr. Mark Carey, thesis prospectus with Dr. Roxann Prazniak, 
and colloquia regarding writing literature reviews with Dr. Trond Jacobsen, I narrowed 
down my topic to specifically investigate the effects of President Trump’s aid policies 
in the region. Overall, I am thankful to have been able to take so much time to learn and
think about this topic. While I believe this adds some extra pressure, given that I am so 
invested and feel obligated to do justice to what has become a large part of my life, I 
could not have come this far without the support of my instructors and their thoughtful 
classes. With this in mind, I want to specifically provide an extended thank you to every
teacher aforementioned in this section, as well as those who have not been included but 
still made a powerful impact on my studies, for their contributions to my learning.
Most recently, I received a fellowship to attend the Oxford Consortium for 
Human Rights (“OCHR”), a week long conference in Oxford, England during summer 
2019. I was selected as one of four undergraduate students to accompany seven other 
graduate and law students from the University of Oregon; we joined with 
representatives from other universities across the United States and ultimately became 
certified as Oxford Human Rights Fellows. OCHR specifically hosts “seminars on 
human rights, global conflict, humanitarian aid, peace building, and related subjects” in 
an effort to understand and develop solutions for the modern problems plaguing our 
5
globalized world (“Oxford”). This particular program focused on issues of international 
movement and migration, specifically covering situations like human trafficking, Syrian
refugee relocation efforts in France, and Central American migrants on the U.S.-Mexico
border. This last lecture specifically helped me focus on the aspects of my thesis that 
delve into the intended versus actual impacts of President Trump’s policies in the 
region. It included details on the effects of family separation, the efforts of nonprofit 
organizations offering health and legal services, and the public demands to suspend 
entities like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). After learning through 
discussions led by experts and peers, each group of school representatives was tasked 
with presenting about the immigration context surrounding their own school; in our 
case, we focused on immigration in Eugene, Oregon and some key actors making a 
difference in that work.
Similarly to the Ignatian Family Teach-in for Justice, I found myself on a 
winding road to my final destination. I applied for the fellowship during my freshman 
year, when I was denied. I applied again my sophomore year, when I was placed on a 
waitlist. A spot opened up a few weeks before departure, but I was unable to financially 
swing obtaining airfare with the last-minute notice. I applied for my final opportunity 
last spring during my senior year; I was overjoyed to learn that my persistence had paid 
off and the topic this summer so perfectly aligned with my interests. During my time in 
Oxford I was able to connect and befriend like-minded people, gaining a sense of the 
scope for my thesis and, by extension, my future career path. Even when challenged, I 
have not wavered from my interests in human movement, but instead made the most of 
6
various opportunities to build upon my existing knowledge and learn more that I could 
apply towards my thesis.
Overall, I feel extremely privileged to be able to have experienced these diverse 
and influential opportunities. The aforementioned life-changing conferences and 
rigorous academic classes have greatly influenced the direction of my thesis project, for 
which I am grateful. However, I am also acutely aware that not many people have 
access to these same resources, much less the opportunity to attend college and write a 
thesis. This disparity becomes increasingly apparent when I focus on the population at 
the heart of my thesis project. Often, the most disadvantaged populations in our world 
comprise of refugees and other migrants. Whether facing violence, economic hardship, 
or sheer instability, refugees are forced to exist without the support of a nation and 
tasked with navigating a world that sees them as more burden than human being. With 
this dichotomy in mind, I have found myself wondering over the course of this process 
what makes me qualified to be doing this research and telling these stories, when I can 
never truly understand the impacts of President Trump’s aid policies in the Northern 
Triangle on a personal level. Over and over again I wonder why I was born in the 
United States with its global power and status, why I have white skin and the 
advantages as well as relative safety that provides, and why I have the financial 
resources to invest in pursuing higher education.
I certainly cannot answer those questions, but I believe it extremely important 
that they be included in this project for transparency and authenticity. I may not have 
known how to ask these critical questions and dispute my own authority without my 
education, and specifically my International Studies, Spanish, and Honors College 
7
courses; therefore, I am thankful for every opportunity to learn and grow my own 
perspectives. Additionally, while my initial curiosity began my senior year of high 
school, my understandings of the world have grown exponentially since then and I 
intend to use my current findings as a foundation that I hope to continue to build upon 
in the future given more developments in character and information. Ultimately, with 
these considerations in mind, I aim to respectfully provide the best research possible 
through the inspiration of my valuable previous experiences as well as the 
acknowledgment of my privilege and the individuals who have helped me achieve all 
that I have been able to in regards to this project.
8
Chapter 2: Terminology and Justification
The following vocabulary terms include those I believe important to properly 
and fully understanding this research. Some words and their accompanying definitions 
are fairly self-explanatory; they are being included to encourage uniformity, seeing as 
even common definitions often vary vastly across people, perspectives, and 
experiences. I have compiled these definitions based on years of research as well as 
specific sources when cited.
Other terms, specifically the differentiations between migrants, immigrants, 
asylum seekers, and refugees, are hotly contested and politicized. For this specific 
terminology, I am adapting the definitions provided by the International Rescue 
Committee (IRC), an international nongovernmental organization that responds to 
humanitarian crises by providing “clean water, shelter, health care, education and 
empowerment support to refugees and displaced people” (“IRC’s Impact”). There exists
heated debate in the United States about how to properly categorize people coming 
from the Northern Triangle to settle in the United States. I have chosen to use the terms 
migrant, immigrant, asylum seeker, and refugee interchangeably. Although there are 
nuanced, technical distinctions outlined in the following definitions, I have not been 
able to find accurate statistics that clearly allocate people from the Northern Triangle 
into these distinct groups. While many would obviously appreciate simple and clear 
categorizations, and thus the use of one precise definition throughout this thesis, this 
conflict is much too nuanced to solely concern itself with using precise academic 
terminology.
9
I am not seeking to make a statement on the quality of refugee protections or the
process behind obtaining this protected status in the United States or around the world 
with this thesis; while these are important issues, that I am equally interested in, they 
remain beyond the scope of this project. Rather, I believe it is important to highlight 
that all people regardless of race, origin, language, and more are deserving of a 
fulfilling and safe life. I aim to accomplish this by delving into the impacts of President 
Trump’s aid decisions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and how that can 
increase instead of decrease surges in movement out of these aforementioned nations, 
ultimately not providing access to a safe life in either their countries of origin or the 
United States.
 In reality, the population leaving the NTCA is mixed; there is documentation of 
people moving due to fear of persecution and violence as well as people who want 
access to better economic opportunities. These two seemingly distinct groups often even
overlap in their stated reasoning for wanting to leave El Salvador, Guatemala, and 
Honduras, citing a mixture of fear as well as a desire to provide their families with 
better options. Both overlapping populations are in need of financial assistance in their 
countries of origin and both contribute to the migration flow towards the United States. 
While I believe the definitions are important context for understanding the complex 
nature of this issue, my approach remains that investing time in trying to distinguish 
between the specific categories of people leaving the Northern Triangle is not worth the 
effort when both “types” of people are in need of aid from the United States to influence
their decisions to remain in their country of origin. Indeed, including these definitions 
even paints a picture of how politicians can use such terminology to defend the 
10
withholding or termination of aid in accordance with which population is purportedly 
being served. Overall, I am choosing to prioritize people and their unique stories over 
prescribing narrow technical definitions that create a hierarchy of who deserves 
assistance.
Related to valuing humanity through vocabulary choices, I am choosing to not 
include terms like “illegal” or “alien” in reference to people leaving the Northern 
Triangle to enter the United States without immigration documentation. While President
Trump uses these terms freely, and they may appear in quotes from his statements 
surrounding the ongoing issue, I support the theoretical framework that no human being
can be illegal or alien. Instead, words such as “undocumented” will be employed to 
encompass this particular scenario. While this choice can also be controversial, I 
strongly support the idea that the words we use matter. Making a conscious effort to 
affirm the humanity of individuals facing difficult life choices that are often influenced 
by factors outside of their control is simply the right and kind action.
With these explanations complete, I present the following vocabulary for 
optimally understanding the context of the Northern Triangle region and President 
Trump’s recent aid policies:
Asylum seeker: Someone seeking international protection from danger 
in their home country, but with a claim for refugee status that has not been 
determined legally. Asylum seekers must arrive at or cross a border in order to 
apply for asylum. They must then prove to authorities that they meet the criteria 
to be covered by refugee protections.
11
Emigration: The act of leaving or exiting one’s country with the 
intention of settling permanently in another.
Femicide: The intentional murder of women because they are women or,
more generally, any killings of women or girls. Femicide explicitly differs from 
male homicide in that “most cases of femicide are committed by partners or ex-
partners, and involve ongoing abuse in the home, threats or intimidation, sexual 
violence or situations where women have less power or fewer resources” 
(Garcia-Moreno).
Gross Domestic Product (GDP): The total value of everything 
produced in a country, regardless of it citizens or non-citizens produced the 
product in question.
Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPPC): A measure of a 
country’s economic output that accounts for its population size; it divides the 
GDP of a country by the number of people in the country in order to attempt to 
quantify a nation’s standard of living.
Homicide: Deliberately and unlawfully killing another person, otherwise
known as murder.
Immigrant: Someone who makes a conscious decision to leave their 
home and move to a foreign country with the intention of settling there. Many 
immigrants go through a lengthy vetting process in order to relocate; some 
arrive in their destination country without documentation.
Immigration: International movement of people entering or coming in 
to settle, usually permanently, in a foreign country.
12
International Non-governmental Organization (INGO): A non-
governmental organization on an international scope, providing advocacy and/or
services worldwide.
Mara Salvatrucha: International criminal gang that originated in Los 
Angeles during the 1970’s and 1980’s, although many members were deported 
to Central America after arrest and/or the end of the Salvadoran Civil War. The 
group participates primarily in extortion as well as trafficking of drugs, arms, 
and people. They are also commonly referred to as MS-13 (“MS13”).
Migrant: Someone moving from place to place, either within their 
country or across borders, usually for economic reasons. These people “were not
forced to leave their native countries because of persecution or violence, but 
rather are seeking better opportunities” (“Migrants”).
Non-governmental Organization (NGO): An organization that is 
independent from both the governmental and private sectors. Also referred to as 
a nonprofit organization, their mission is to advocate for a cause or point of 
view.
Northern Triangle: See Northern Triangle of Central America (NTCA).
Northern Triangle of Central America (NTCA): Refers to the three 
Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras; referred 
to jointly due to their economic integration as well as shared challenges 
(including poverty, violence, and corruption).
13
Push-pull Factors: Influences that drive people away from one place 
and towards a new location; combinations of push-pull elements help determine 
migrations of particular population from one place to another.
Refugee: Someone who has been forced to flee their home because of 
war, violence, or persecution. An official entity determines “whether a person 
seeking international protection meets the definition of a refugee, based on well-
founded fear” (“Migrants”). Those with refugee status have special protections 
under international law.
18th Street: Also known as Barrio 18, Calle 18 or M-18, this 
transnational criminal organization began in Los Angeles and focuses on 
kidnapping and extortion. Their rivalry with the Mara Salvatrucha gang has 
exacerbated the violence in the Northern Triangle (“Barrio 18”).
14
Chapter 3: Literature Review
This literature review will explore sources that contextualize the intentions and 
impacts behind the Trump Administration’s aid policies as related to the flow of asylum
seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, in order to form a better 
background of understanding for the ensuing thesis. While the Trump Administration 
feels strongly that these actions will incentivize the three governments to take action, 
other experts in the field have expressed concern about the countries’ abilities to reduce 
migration without funding to implement programs that provide practical education and 
employment opportunities within their own territory. Additionally, this work will 
critically examine the perspectives taken when making funding decisions and 
immigration policies in general, questioning whether ending funding and therefore 
programming in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras will allow the countries to 
better focus on deterring migration themselves or serve as a greater push factor from the
region. Too often politics narrowly focus on the United States as a pull factor; while this
remains a valid consideration, the Northern Triangle possesses its fair share of powerful
push factors. These influences include the prevalent violence, gang activity, and 
economic weaknesses characteristic of the region that will be elaborated on in the 
following chapters. This work will investigate whether punitive deterrence strategies 
like aid reduction by the United States maintain a strong influence on migrants’ 
decisions to seek refuge or whether these actions simply make the lives of Central 
Americans, who would chose to migrate anyway due to the strength of the 
aforementioned push factors, more difficult.
15
This literature review will focus on sources that cover core issues ranging from 
current accounts of the Trump Administration’s Central American aid policies to 
President Trump’s general interaction with the Northern Triangle region. General push 
factors and root causes will be referenced for background and included in the historical 
context chapter, but the most relevant literature will offer commentary on a combination
of the Trump Administration immigration policies, decisions regarding U.S. 
humanitarian aid, and refugees or migrants from the Northern Triangle of Central 
America. Information on this topic was obtained through a variety of sources, one type 
being current news articles, which have the benefit of providing the most up-to-date 
information possible regarding oft fluctuating government budget decisions. 
Additionally, quantitative as well as qualitative investigations are referenced, providing 
a variety of new research about both U.S. and Northern Triangle perspectives about the 
refugee crisis. Furthermore, synthesis articles contribute essential background 
information about Central American refugees as well as Trump’s relationship with latin 
America. Finally, government documents supply a wealth of information including 
official publications regarding immigration policies, interviews with President Trump, 
and analysis of federal budget allocations.
News articles form the first category of literature being included, specifically 
focusing on the Trump Administration’s recent and ongoing aid decisions in the 
Northern Triangle. While showcased in this literature review, this source type 
additionally proved essential for the body of this thesis and drawing conclusions about 
the impacts of Trump’s aid decisions. Although not technically peer-reviewed academic
articles, and therefore not usually included in reviews of literature, this case proves an 
16
exception as the changes to aid distribution have been so recent that no peer-reviewed 
journal has yet fully covered this information. Including an overview of these news 
articles proves essential to understanding the most recent events as part of the broader 
research landscape, while acknowledging this information gap as a weakness within the 
field that this thesis seeks to remedy. Work like that of Boyd, “Trump: No More Aid for
Three Central American Countries,” contributes helpfully to the research field by 
explaining the basic facts and circumstances of the recent aid decisions, including dates 
and timing, financial figures, and quotes from President Trump’s official statements on 
the issue. Without these simple factual explanations, further analysis would be 
impossible and one could not comprehensively articulate recent events critical to this 
thesis. Similarly, an article from NPR by McDonnell features direct interviews with and
quotations from Northern Triangle citizens previously benefitting from U.S. aid 
programs as well as the INGO partners newly suffering from the lack of funding. News 
articles like these valuably provide access to fresh perspectives directly influenced by 
recent humanitarian aid decisions from the United States’ government, introducing real 
world experiences to the field that have not yet been accessed by peer-reviewed 
research. Additionally, authors Tegel and Grunstein, respectively writing “Aid Cuts 
Won't Slow Central America's Exodus” and “The Failed Assumptions Behind Central 
America's Refugee Crisis,” both critique Trump’s aid decisions by elaborating on how 
the funds are intended to allow potential immigrants to remain at home by improving 
living conditions, reducing violence, and encouraging economic development. Not only 
do these sources explain recent political proceedings, but they offer valuable 
preliminary arguments against the effectiveness of Trump’s strategies, contributing to 
17
the overall research inquiry into whether methods of deterrence prove compelling. 
Overall, news articles critically provide the most recent information specifically about 
Trump’s aid decisions, updating the research field faster than peer-reviewed sources.
Additionally, quantitative peer-reviewed articles prove essential to 
understanding the research landscape surrounding the Central American refugee crisis, 
especially in relation to perspectives within the United States. Detailing the methods 
and results of primary research relating to the topic of Central American migrants and 
their journey to the United States, these sources valuably supply a range of results from 
experiments that would be impossible for this thesis to produce given various 
constraints. While the benefits of these sources have restrictions in that the limitations 
of the original researchers still apply, as well as an unavoidable lack of familiarity with 
the original projects on the part of this thesis, they still allow an overall greater 
comprehension beneficial to orienting this work within the larger research field. 
Additionally, although this thesis primarily functions from an international perspective, 
these articles provide an analysis of the U.S. citizenry’s perspectives and what 
influences those thought processes that critically contextualize the U.S. government’s 
decisions. For example, “Assessing the Relationship Between Neoliberal Ideology and 
Reactions to Central American Asylum Seekers in the United States” by Dutt and 
Kohfeldt discovers that neoliberal ideology “strongly correlated with moral exclusion, 
lower levels of willingness to engage in efforts to support the rights of asylum seekers, 
and greater ethnocentrism.” Recognizing this dominant policy of neoliberalism in the 
Republican party and investigating the subsequent trend in human sentiments, this 
article contextualizes Trump’s actions regarding aid within the attitudes of the 
18
population. While not directly related to aid allocation, this study provides information 
about how willing U.S. citizens might be to support the revocation of aid to Central 
America, thus influencing the circumstances surrounding subsequent U.S. fiscal 
decisions. Relatedly, “‘You are Not Welcome Here!’ Understanding News Coverage of 
Central American Migrant Families in Trump's America” by Chattopadhyay examines 
how the New York Times discusses the migrant crisis and therefore influences its large 
readership base. While some of the articles analyzed may include discussion of Trump’s
aid policies in the region, Chattopadhyay does not pursue this as a main focus; however,
exploring media and the influence it exerts over U.S. citizens similarly contextualizes 
Trump’s decisions within the current political climate of the United States. Quantitative 
peer-reviewed articles prove particularly useful in this thesis’ research landscape for 
understanding attitudes in the United States regarding Central American refugees, 
which could in turn influence policies of humanitarian aid enacted by the government.
Furthermore, qualitative sources also influence the research landscape 
surrounding the Central American refugee crisis, specifically contributing primary 
research about the push factors influencing migrants. While not providing statistical 
analyses like the aforementioned quantitative investigations, these peer-reviewed 
articles prove arguably more influential to this particular thesis as they provide 
individual interview responses and quotes from Central Americans choosing to leave 
their countries of origin, also employed within the body of the thesis as direct evidence 
of the consequences of Trump’s aid decisions. These direct interactions humanize the 
experiences of people seeking asylum, an essential part of this thesis, and provide real 
stories to support more statistical understandings of the root causes of migration. While 
19
similarly experiencing limitations according to the parameters of the original research 
and the less intimate understanding of the process as a whole, these results can still be 
helpfully used to appropriate analyses based in primary research not available to this 
thesis. For instance, Spohn’s work in her article “Emigrants' Stories of Foreign Aid and 
their Reasons for Emigration: Guatemalans on the Move” directly asks emigrants about 
the challenges and opportunities within their origin country that motivate their 
movement, even going so far as to explicitly ask about the effectiveness of aid 
programs. While constrained by only focusing on Guatemala and having a small sample
size of interview participants, this style of research generates results that directly help 
answer research questions regarding the impact of deterrence immigration policies. 
Similarly, “Why are You Seeking Refuge?: Conducting Evaluations of Central 
American Asylum Seekers” by Rosenberg features case studies that supply more real 
world stories that humanize migrants and the trauma they face individually. Helpfully 
giving individual migrants a voice and discouraging the apathy that can accompany 
large statistics, the article also points out the increasingly antagonistic rhetoric and 
policies of the Trump Administration. While providing a more niche perspective within 
the field by focusing on mental health and the role of mental health professionals 
throughout the refugee crisis, the overall takeaways that look at whether push factors 
overwhelmingly influence decisions to migrate still apply clearly to this thesis. Mainly, 
this area of the research field produces evidence to back claims regarding the strength of
push factors versus pull factors influencing migration from the Northern Triangle.
Next, synthesis articles covering the root causes as well as legalistic definitions 
regarding the movement of people from the Northern Triangle have proven invaluable 
20
to understanding larger issues behind Trump’s relationship with aid in El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras. While not necessarily presenting new research findings, 
understanding the recombination and rethinking of other sources to create powerful new
arguments related the Central American refugee crisis essentially assists in 
comprehending the literature around the topic as a whole. Indeed, because these sources
tend to combine previous thinking from other authors, the articles provide an even 
better understanding of the overall scope of the field of research. One source 
specifically, “Securing Protection for De Facto Refugees: The Case of Central 
America’s Northern Triangle” by Medrano, explains the trauma often suffered due to 
gang and state sanctioned violence as well as the inability of Salvadorans, Guatemalans,
and Hondurans to secure protective status because of definitions originating in the 1951 
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. This explanation 
of current legal limitations helps contextualize the current struggle between the reasons 
humanitarian aid could greatly help the region and the reasons the Trump 
Administration can shirk a sense of obligation to provide assistance. Furthermore, a 
similar article, “Tearing Down the Wall between Refuge and Gang-based Asylum 
Seekers: Why the United States Should Reconsider its Stance on Central American 
Gang Based Asylum Claims,” again takes a legalistic approach by asserting that the 
U.S. government inconsistently applies social group characteristics when choosing to 
give protections to refugees of domestic violence and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
but not gang violence. Providing more insight to the legal end of the research landscape,
this piece overall supports the need for more protection and support denied these 
migrants by Trump’s aid policies. A related work titled “Invisible War: Central 
21
America's Forgotten Humanitarian Crisis” specifically compiles information regarding 
the violence, extortion, gang recruitment, and disappearances plaguing the region. 
Written by Cone and Bosch Bonacasa, the article showcases perspectives obtained from
working within a shelter along the Northern Triangle migratory route, offering new 
perspectives alongside a valuable synthesis of the root causes pushing migration. 
Synthesis articles generally covering the struggles and rights of Northern Triangle 
refugees help supply critical background information for understanding the whole of the
conflict before exploring the finer details of humanitarian aid policy. While much of 
this information remains outside the scope of this particular project, this research also 
specifically plays into the aforementioned chapter that will summarize the root causes 
known to influence migration from the Northern Triangle.
Synthesis articles within the field additionally provide a great deal of 
information generally regarding the Trump Administration and U.S. relations with 
Central America. While this thesis will specifically focus on Trump’s decisions 
regarding international aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, this work would 
be meaningless without an understanding of both Trump’s relationship with Latin 
America and U.S. relations with the region as a whole. While these articles cover a wide
range of information, including the effectiveness of U.S. deterrence strategies, the 
morality of U.S. immigration policies, U.S. citizens’ reactions to Trump’s actions in 
Central America, and suggestions for Trump’s engagement in Latin America, they 
generally provide information about U.S. relations with Northern Triangle within which
one can situate specific conversations about aid. For instance, “Leaving the Devil You 
Know: Crime Victimization, US Deterrence Policy, and the Emigration Decision in 
22
Central America” directly connects to research inquiries posed by this thesis about the 
effectiveness of stricter deterrence efforts. Previous successful work like that of Hiskey,
Córdova, Malone, and Orcés will guide deeper quests for information in a productive 
direction. Additionally, in “The Asymmetric Border: The United States' Place in the 
World and the Refugee Panic of 2018,” Agnew asserts that the U.S. government faces a 
crisis of morality following problematic immigration enforcement decisions. This 
article discusses Trump’s policies more broadly, including child separation decisions, 
situating humanitarian aid issues within the larger context of harmful practices towards 
Northern Triangle refugees. Fernando Torres-Gil and Demko take a slightly different 
approach to the overall same subtopic, writing “The 2018 Mid-term Elections: Backlash
to the Backlash on Immigrants, Diversity, and Divisiveness” to elaborate on apparent 
backlash against Republican rhetoric as evidenced thought mid-term elections. 
Documenting a growing resistance to Trump’s scapegoating of refugees, capturing 
these instances of change helps provide a more comprehensive and realistic view of the 
topic, alerting the literary field to important emerging trends. Finally, “Beyond the 
Headlines: A Strategy for US Engagement with Latin America in the Trump Era” and 
“The Trump Administration in Latin America: Continuity and Change” both provide 
analyses of and suggestions for President Trump’s relations with Latin America as a 
whole. While the sections about the Northern Triangle countries directly impact the 
thesis topic, obtaining a general sense of the United States’ engagement with the 
continent as a whole contextualizes the Northern Triangle refugee problem within the 
broader research landscape. Altogether, these synthesis articles, while covering a wide 
23
range of information, serve to broadly communicate the political environment 
surrounding Trump’s revoking of aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Lastly, various government documents provide a unique channel of information 
about the Central American refugee crisis and its relation to the cessation of aid from 
the United States to the Northern Triangle. Including a frequently asked questions 
document about Central American migration, interview exchanges between President 
Trump and journalists, and an analysis of the U.S. foreign assistance budget, these 
documents examine direct information from the government. While not peer-reviewed 
journals, and therefore not traditionally included in a literature review, these documents 
allow a greater understanding of U.S. policy by supplying information directly from the 
source of the humanitarian aid allocation decisions. For example, “Recent Migration to 
the United States from Central America: Frequently Asked Questions” provides a 
current overview of migration, including both statistics as well as push and pull factors. 
While covering a much wider topical scope than this thesis, taking into account the 
interpretations of migration the United States chooses to portray within this document 
offers an excellent opportunity to understand the issue from the perspective of the U.S. 
government. “Remarks in an Exchange with Reporters Prior to Departure for Houston, 
Texas,” another government document that features valuably in surrounding literature, 
provides direct quotations between President Trump and various journalists at a press 
conference. These exchanges provide direct insight into the logic and reasoning Trump 
uses to support decisions regarding the Central American refugee crisis, valuably 
contributing to understanding the removal of aid from Northern Triangle nations. In 
addition, Meyer produces an analysis titled “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America 
24
and the Caribbean: FY2018 Appropriations” which includes Trump’s specific foreign 
assistance request that would cut funding for nearly every type of assistance and every 
nation in the region. Providing the concrete numbers behind the rhetoric, these statistics 
work together with an understanding of the policy implications for Central America to 
paint a comprehensive picture of the impacts of aid reductions. These government 
documents form a critical portion of the literature available in the field, directly 
connecting to the specific questions posed by this thesis.
In summary, a wide range of academic literature encompasses the Central 
American refugee crisis. While not every aspect can be directly applicable to specific 
projects, in this case the investigation of the Trump Administration’s reduction of aid to
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, understanding the larger field of literature and 
thinking remains important to having a well-rounded and comprehensive understanding 
of the scope of the issue as a whole. Without this contextualization, especially insights 
including the perspectives of major players such as the U.S. government, the Northern 
Triangle nations, and the migrants themselves, this thesis’ discussion of the anticipated 
consequences and complications from Trump’s aid policies would lack the necessary 
weight to demonstrate the importance of this discussion. Pulling from a wide variety of 
sources including news articles, quantitative and qualitative research reports, peer-
reviewed synthesis articles about various subtopics, and government documents allows 
for a better understanding of where this new investigation regarding humanitarian aid 
and deterrence policies will fit into the research landscape.
25
Chapter 4: Research Question and Methods
As President Trump’s aid decisions have taken place relatively recently and 
author travel to the Northern Triangle for in-person investigation was not feasible, this 
thesis necessitated a creative methodology which evolved over the course of the project.
Traditional academic research methods were employed to inform both the literature 
review as well as the historical context and push factors of Northern Triangle. Dr. Trond
Jacobsen and Dr. Derrick Hindery’s courses proved essential for teaching both the best 
ways to research such topics in addition to providing the space to develop these distinct 
portions of the thesis. Specifically, techniques like faceting, aliasing, developing 
Boolean search strings, and selecting well-matched academic databases proved 
exceedingly helpful for generating high quality search results, thus forming the basis of 
a thorough investigation.
In terms of gathering information specifically regarding Trump’s aid decisions 
in the Northern Triangle, this thesis prioritized the stories of citizens from El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, specifically including beneficiaries of aid programs, migrants, 
and journalists, statements from aid organization workers, and perspectives from 
government officials to gauge the impact of U.S. government policy. Interviews with 
migrants and aid recipients primarily came from the academic journal articles 
previously discovered for the literature review. However, news articles from reputable 
sources, such as NPR and The New York Times, also proved invaluable for obtaining 
direct quotes and extrapolating ideas. In order to find Central American newspaper 
articles, and therefore a perspective not defined by its geographic relation to the United 
States, the author consecutively changed the internet TLD to El Salvador, Guatemala, 
26
and Honduras. By conducting google searches with each country’s different internet 
domain code, authentic, Spanish-language sources about the issue became available. 
Including pieces in Spanish became an important feature of this thesis, as that is the first
language of many impacted by the reduction in aid resources, and therefore a critical 
component to fully comprehending the impacts of Trump’s decisions. Similar 
manipulation of google and popular U.S. news sources proved essential for obtaining 
interviews with aid workers and statements from U.S. politicians regarding their views 
of Trump’s revocation of humanitarian aid.
These methods for the main body of the paper can be summarized as using 
media analysis and personal narratives. Media analysis, applicable to the newspaper 
sources, involved taking into account American as well as Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and
Honduran media’s portrayal of Trump’s aid choices as well as the narratives included. 
Through these methods, the author had intimate insight into the sentiments of all 
involved nations, specifically through opinion writings and additional interviews. 
Furthermore, personal narrative analysis was employed for interviews and articles that 
prominently featured quotes from interviews. Capturing the personal experiences 
behind the more frequently disseminated statistics became a key goal of this thesis, as it 
allows for the humanization of individuals and their stories.
Despite the strength of these convictions regarding the power of storytelling, the
issue of quantitative bias must be addressed. Certain types of research are often favored 
and prioritized; for example, reports that heavily rely on data, statistics, and numerical 
figures are frequently accepted more readily than qualitative data. While this thesis 
makes use of quantitative data when beneficial to accurately conveying information, it 
27
primarily relies on the individual stories and experiences. This choice was partially 
made because the aid decisions of the Trump Administration have all taken place over 
the past two years, and there has not been sufficient time to generate many quantitative 
studies and observe the subsequent results. However, and more importantly, this thesis 
consciously prioritizes the powerful conveyance of mutual concern and individual 
stories. Despite understanding the risks of quantitative bias, projecting diverse yet also 
interconnected narratives took priority in discussing the impacts of President Trump’s 
aid reduction.
Overall, this thesis will ask the question “What are the impacts of ending or 
reducing U.S. humanitarian aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador?” 
Specifically, this work will investigate whether punitive deterrence strategies like aid 
reduction by the United States possess a strong influence on migrants’ decisions to seek 
refuge or whether these actions simply make the lives of Central Americans, who would
chose to migrate anyway due to the strength of the aforementioned push factors, more 
difficult.
28
Chapter 5: Introduction
Human movement and migration have become pressing topics of conversation 
and debate in the modern era, increasing in prevalence with improvement of technology
and growth of globalization. Indeed, migration with the intention of seeking refugee or 
asylum status has particularly been on the rise, as the “United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that the number of requests for 
international refugee or asylum protection increased fivefold from 2010 to 2015” 
(Medrano 129). Yet despite media portrayals that emphatically focus on the Syrian 
refugee crisis and its impacts on the global North, issues of mass movement occur all 
over the world, notably including the current refugee crisis from the Northern Triangle. 
Sometimes considered failed states, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras face high 
levels of gang and drug related violence, femicide and violence against women, and 
extortion and corruption amongst law enforcement and the government. With 
longstanding U.S. travel warnings in place for all three nations, El Salvador, Guatemala,
and Honduras boast “sky-high annual homicide rates, of 83, 27, and 57 per 100,000 
residents in 2016” (Tegel). Additionally these countries struggle economically, 
demonstrated by the fact that “El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras had annual per 
capita incomes in 2017 of just $3,889, $4,471, and $2,480 respectively, far below the 
Latin American and Caribbean average of $9,275” (Tegel). Economic issues showcase 
deeper seeded problems like the absolute control gang activity exerts over these 
societies and the overall lack of education and employment opportunities outside of 
joining the Mara Salvatrucha or the 18th Street gangs.
29
In response to these extensive issues, which will be elaborated on later, large 
numbers of migrants stem from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, passing through
Mexico in order to seek refugee status and a better life in the United States. The general 
number of refugees and asylum seekers “from the three countries of the Northern 
Triangle has seen nearly a tenfold increase since 2011 […]. Asylum applications from 
NTCA nationals were 45 percent higher between January and June of 2017 as compared
to the same period from 2016” (Cone and Bosch Bonacasa 226). Moreover, this 
problem is not limited to the United States border, as nations surrounding the Northern 
Triangle also experience an increasing amount of applications for asylum: “Salvadoran, 
Guatemalan, and Honduran children and families are also seeking refuge closer to home
in the neighboring countries of Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize” 
with a massive “432 percent increase in the number of asylum requests” in these five 
countries from 2009 to 2012 (Restrepo 2). Elevated numbers of people from the 
Northern Triangle have also become internally displaced (Restrepo 3).
However, the actual statistics regarding the number of migrants have fallen as of
2019, especially following unprecedented surges of unaccompanied migrant children. 
This crisis garnered intense media attention during the summer of 2014 when “more 
than 57,000 children […] arrived in the United States, double the number who made it 
to the U.S. southern border in FY 2013” (Restrepo 1). In spite of this incident, strictly 
measuring according to numbers, it could be argued as of 2018 that there “was no 
immigration crisis at the border […] The irregular movement of people from El 
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is currently small by historical standards” (Agnew 
507). However, a rigid assessment of solely numbers does not provide a comprehensive 
30
understanding of the situation. Instead, one could understand United States immigration
policies as currently suffering from a crisis of human rights, as evidenced by recent 
Trump Administration policies like denial of a proper pathway to asylum status, parent-
child separation policies, and termination of aid to the region (Agnew 507). These 
political actions showcase the overall attitude of the current administration and its 
disregard for the humanity of Central American migrants, escalating an already tense 
situation and further endangering already vulnerable people. The extreme politicization 
of immigration issues accompanying President Trump’s election has specifically played
into the current administration’s debates about humanitarian assistance to El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras (Agnew).
In April of 2019, the Trump Administration announced its intentions to freeze 
U.S. foreign aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Amounting to $450 million, 
President Trump asserted that these nations have failed to stem the outflow of migrants 
heading towards the United States and need to be punished “‘because they haven't done 
a thing for us’” (Tegel). However, many experts have called into question the logic 
behind this position, identifying its contradiction of previous U.S. approaches to foreign
relations as the aid allocation exists solely because the U.S. government sought to 
resolve problems within El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras “by channeling 
hundreds of millions of dollars through dozens of local and international 
nongovernmental organizations that carry out development and humanitarian programs 
on its behalf” (McDonnell). The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 
allocated aid money to programs that promote a variety of education and employment 
opportunities in an effort to stabilize the region and therefore discourage migration:
31
The projects in jeopardy include a series of discount agricultural supply 
markets in the highlands; rural health clinics; community savings and 
loans funds; after-school tutoring for kids in violent urban 
neighborhoods; shelters for victims of domestic abuse and human 
trafficking; re-integration services for returned migrants; trainings aimed 
at improving the transparency and effectiveness of local governments; 
and support for conserving ecologically sensitive landscapes. 
(McDonnell, 2019)
Without this financial support on the ground, many analysts predict that migratory 
outflows will grow stronger, as abruptly removing this aid will undermine any sense of 
opportunity and increase vulnerability in the region. While budget negotiations are 
ongoing and unresolved as of December 2019, this decision aligns with overall trends 
and priorities of the Trump Administration, as fiscal year 2016 and 2019 witnessed the 
aid budget for the region drop from $750 million to $530 million (McDonnell).
As of October 2019, President Trump claimed to have reneged his plans to 
revoke U.S. aid to to the Northern Triangle. Through various tweets, Trump praised the 
three nations for their renewed efforts to combat migration and specifically for signing 
“new accords with the United States that will potentially allow the Department of 
Homeland Security to send asylum seekers from the U.S. border back to Central 
America” (Miroff). While President Trump did not specify the financial amount to be 
returned, sources close to the decision have widely reported $143 million (Miroff). 
While obviously still a considerable figure, these numbers are significantly reduced 
from the original $450 million allocated for the aforementioned aid programs. 
Additionally, reports point to the intentions of the United States government to restrict 
this funding to limited issues including “counternarcotics operations, military aid, 
assistance with the resettlement of deportees and programs to prevent young people 
from joining gangs” (Miroff). While these are important concerns that deserve financial 
32
assistance, programs like those described in McDonnell’s article still face increasing 
uncertainty. Furthermore, the time gap in the release of aid will negatively impact 
existing programs although the extent of the damage is not yet fully known; many had 
to suspend services which created complications, inconsistencies, and ultimately 
regressions in focus communities. Finally, there is overall concern about the deal El 
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras were pressured to make and their ability to quickly 
implement asylum systems capable of protecting vulnerable groups. Polls in the three 
nations show minimal public support for “a deal that would require their governments 
to resettle foreigners seeking refuge,” despite promises of accompanying additional aid 
(Miroff).
As already evidenced, issues relating to migration in the Northern Triangle can 
be quite broad in scope, therefore this introduction also takes necessary time to define 
what information and topics will be limited throughout this thesis project. For example, 
the United States claims a long history of political and militaristic intervention in this 
region of the world. This problematic fact and the impacts of these interventions on El 
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras form the subjects of other throughly done research 
projects and articles. While these factors are briefly touched upon in the following 
historical context section, these brief paragraphs cannot do justice to the lengthy 
investments of time and research undertaken by other authors. Including some of this 
context is necessary, in order to display the responsibility of the United States to play a 
role in creating solutions; because the United States has promoted policies that 
prioritized intervention and involvement, often at the expense of Central American 
interests, the nation has a duty to assist in the current crises that have been exacerbated 
33
by past actions. However, the overall approach remains to focus on the relationship 
between aid and migration in the context of the currently occurring refugee crisis.
The Northern Triangle has also historically been the site for a number of surges 
in migration, related to the extended involvement of the United States. However, this 
research will only be focusing on the most recent cases of migration from El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras to the United States. While the history of movement from 
this region could provide interesting insights into the state of immigration now as well 
as point to overall patterns, it connects too deeply to the historical events and patterns 
that extend beyond the scope of this research.
Additionally, when prioritizing a human-oriented approach to comprehending 
the situation, it can be assumed that migrants themselves do not peruse history texts or 
the causes of current issues as rationale for leaving. Instead, these migrants focus on the
tangible realities of their everyday lives that serve as the impetus for their departure. 
Relatedly, while push factors feature prominently into this analysis of the impacts of 
revoking U.S. aid, they will serve as a peripheral focus. The main concerns surround the
lack of U.S. aid and support failing as an intended deterrence strategy, and instead 
becoming its own powerful push factor. While critical to understanding the context of 
and establishing motivations for migration, no revolutionarily new understandings of 
other push factors will be introduced. Expert researchers and authors have already spent
time examining the root problems of the region, and this information will be featured in 
the subsequent chapter regarding the historical context and root causes.
34
Chapter 6: Historical Context and Root Causes
Many authors have taken the time to create quality synthesis pieces about the 
history of the Northern Triangle’s struggles and the root causes that have led to 
persistent migration out of the region in this modern era, as mentioned throughout the 
literature review. In order to properly contextualize the more recent issue of Trump’s 
aid decisions and its impacts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, this chapter will
summarize some of those previous findings, specifically focusing on the influence of 
gang activity and derivative problems as well as previous, problematic interventions in 
the NTCA.
The increased violence followed and sustained by gang activity in the Northern 
Triangle has historical roots in U.S. foreign policy. In general, violence initially became
more commonplace following the United States’ “support of wars against popular 
movements seeking social change in Northern Triangle countries in the 1970s and 
1980s” (Carlson 132). The political histories of these nations have been deeply 
intertwined for decades, as the United States specifically staged multiple interventions 
in the region ranging from the CIA’s operation to overthrow Guatemala’s 
democratically elected president in the 1950’s and the U.S. intervention in El Salvador’s
civil war during the 1980’s (Shesgreen). These critical events have lead to a lasting 
impact on migration patterns and safety levels in the Northern Triangle.
Additionally, when gangs began to develop and strengthen in Central American 
immigrant communities, the U.S. government failed to acknowledge or remedy the 
causations of this gang development, such as poverty, racism, and a lack of social 
control (Carlson 132). Instead, the U.S. government attempted to eradicate the gang 
35
problem by passing laws in the 1990s and 2000s that involved the deportation of 
undocumented immigrants with criminal records to their heritage countries, already 
fragile and recovering from the aforementioned long term conflict and civil war 
(Labrador). Arguably even more problematic, many deportees had never actually lived 
in El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras for significant periods of time; instead, these 
individuals were primarily raised in the United States. Ultimately, these deportations 
resulted in “strengthening the transnational link between the Central American and U.S.
gangs, without curtailing the level of gang violence” in either nation (Carlson 132). 
Additionally, this meddling changed the dynamics of gangs in the Northern Triangle, 
creating “maras” or vast networks of “young people associated with the franchises of 
[…] the Mara Salvatrucha Thirteen (MS-13) and the Eighteenth Street gang (Barrio 
18)” (Cruz 46). Both major gangs “formed in Los Angles: M-18 in the 1960s by 
Mexican youth, and MS-13 in the 1980s by Salvadorans who had fled the civil war” 
(Labrador). U.S. policy provided these organizations the opportunity to expand 
internationally as well as build an estimated base of "85,000 gang members" in the 
Northern Triangle countries combined (Restrepo 6). Moreover, these two organizations 
consider each other “enemies to the death” and violently engage in disputes over 
territory (Cantor 86). This nurtures an unsafe environment that diminishes the ability of 
the people of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to confidently build their lives in 
Central America.
This expansion of gang activity directly relates to the extremely high levels of 
homicide in the Northern Triangle. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime reports that 
“Honduras had the world’s highest per-capita homicide rate in 2012, at 90.4 homicides 
36
per 100,000 people. El Salvador was fourth in the world, with a rate of 41.2 homicides 
per 100,000 people, and Guatemala was fifth, with a rate of 39.9 homicides per 100,000
people” (Restrepo 4). Gang presence concentrated in the Northern Triangle produces 
these grotesquely high figures. In Latin America, gang members committed around 
two-thirds of registered 2015 homicides (Cantor 84). These figures prove even more 
concerning when juxtaposed with gang-based homicide levels in other areas of the 
world: “In Latin America, fully 30 percent of homicides in 2013 were organized-crime 
or gang-related compared to just 1 percent in Asia, Europe, and Oceania" (Restrepo 5). 
This numerical discrepancy quantifies the vast differences in safety around the world. 
The high occurrence of gang instigated homicide sheds light on migration due to fear 
for life and safety.
Furthermore, gang violence presents a heightened risk to women and young 
people, impacting levels of migration. Competing gangs consistently target and recruit 
young men, threatening to kill these teenagers and following through on that threat if 
they continue to resist membership (Valdés 84). This validates the reasoning behind 
people leaving El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as regular recruitment directly 
threatens the lives of citizens. Additionally, gang members frequently rape young 
women and gang leaders have the power to turn women into sex slaves (Medrano 131). 
While gang members unfortunately often execute these violent, abusive acts, even the 
threat of these violations can be psychologically torturous enough to prompt women to 
abandon their country of origin. In a video from The Guardian, partially filmed in a 
Mexican migrant shelter, one woman recounted her terrifyingly life altering experiences
with gangs in El Salvador: “They beat me. I was in the hospital for eight days. But I 
37
never imagined that I was pregnant. Because during that time they raped me. After all 
that, they said, be grateful that we didn’t kill you” (“If You Come Back”). This horrific 
account first-handedly recounts the terror imposed on women by Northern Triangle 
gangs. Women in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras face economic, physical, 
sexual, and psychological violence, which all influence decisions to seek refuge abroad.
Furthermore, Northern Triangle countries do not only have the highest rates of 
homicide, but specifically report “the world’s highest rates of ‘femicides’” (Cantor 83). 
Harming young people and women in particular, violence of all kinds has become a 
prominent push factor.
Extortion also largely impacts security in the Northern Triangle, thus 
influencing the need to leave in search of more stable opportunities. Experts estimate 
that a gang member in the Northern Triangle region “is able to collect approximately 
$1,000 every week in ‘protection taxes’” (Cruz 46). Gang members coerce protection 
taxes; they force community members to pay fees to prevent the gang from using 
physical intimidation or other destructive tactics. Many people in El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras cannot afford these fees and yet also cannot bear to face the 
consequential threats. In 2015, a Honduran newspaper discovered that Salvadorans, 
Hondurans, and Guatemalans “pay an estimated $390 million, $200 million, and $61 
million, respectively, in annual extortion fees to organized crime groups” (Labrador). 
This exorbitant amount of coerced money discourages people from the Northern 
Triangle from attempting to grow roots in the region, instead pushing these people to 
find more stable locations to raise families and run businesses. In the same interview 
with the woman from the migrant shelter, she describes how she maintained a 
38
successful business in El Salvador until gangs began to threaten her, asserting that, 
“They took my business, they took my house” (“If You Come Back”). With her source 
of livelihood and stability for her family destroyed, not to mention the ensuing physical 
trauma, gang activity forced this woman as well as many others in similar situations to 
prioritize the preservation of familial safety and wellbeing.
The damaging practice of extortion resonates even more deeply given the low 
socioeconomic status of the Northern Triangle, connected to a lack of access to 
education as well as job opportunities. This creates a relentless cycle that both pushes 
young people into gang life and subsequently allows gang life to continue, additionally 
fueling migration. For instance, 45.0 percent Salvadorans, 54.8 percent Guatemalans, 
and 67.4 percent Hondurans live in poverty, enforced by the blatant economic 
inequality in the nations (Restrepo 6). This widespread poverty disillusions young 
people, as many believe that they have no option other than gang life to secure a future 
in their home country. In order to escape this poverty and subsequent dependency on 
gang life, many chose to seek educational and economic opportunities elsewhere. 
Additionally, this poverty and its connection to gangs continues to exist as the 
government struggles to facilitate alternative education and employment opportunities: 
“Lack of access to well-paid jobs, training programs, and quality education 
disproportionately exposed many Central American youngsters to a life of crime and 
violence” (Cruz 47). Not only do Salvadoran, Honduran, and Guatemalan young people
find it challenging to trust the public sector, the governments continue to underperform 
in job creation, training, and educational programs, causing migration to places with 
increased access to these services.
39
Not only do these governments have difficulties creating economic change, the 
Northern Triangle countries additionally struggle with implementing societal change. 
This inability to protect their own citizens from gang violence and create solutions in 
the region partially stems from reliance on the aforementioned dubious political 
interventions of the United States; nevertheless, these challenges increase people’s 
desire to leave and seek safety elsewhere. For example, Cruz maintains that old Central 
American regimes thwarted political reforms in the 1990s during the installation of 
democracies, perpetuating problems of the past and undermining efforts to enact 
change. New governmental actors allowed former government personnel with histories 
of human rights abuses to continue in their positions, weakening new institutions by 
maintaining old, flawed practices and overlooking the importance of accountability 
(Cruz 47). When these governments received opportunities to enact changes and step 
into power voids occupied by gang organizations during times of civil war, they failed 
do so and instead allowed corrupt individuals to maintain previous practices. This 
greatly decreased confidence in the government’s effectiveness; the inability of 
governments to provide adequate responses to victims of gang violence pushed citizens 
towards migration (Cantor 90). Presently, the Northern Triangle governments continue 
to lack control in their own territories due to the influence of gangs: “Real power, then, 
increasingly rests with a host of autonomous TOC [transnational organized crime] 
groups, their allied political actors, and private armies equipped with their own resource
base that makes the reimposition of state control as a positive influence difficult if not 
impossible” (Farah 94).
40
Furthermore, people from the Northern Triangle not only disapprove of a 
general lack of government control, but also encounter government corruption and its 
influence on the perpetuation of gang culture. These challenges have been heavily 
influenced by the interventions of the United States. However, corruption and the 
prevalence of gang activity remain key factors impacting migration and aid decisions. 
Corruption scandals in the region surface regularly and have even gone so far as to 
implicate “former presidents such as Francisco Flores of El Salvador and Alfonso 
Portillo and Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala” (Colburn 83). The highest office holders 
being caught in corruption scandals demonstrates the prevalent exploitation of 
governmental power and makes ordinary citizens doubt their own government’s desire 
to protect them from gangs. Farah comments on the interconnectedness of government 
and illegal crime, claiming that the “Northern Triangle is emerging as a region where 
the state is often no longer the main power center or has become so entwined with a 
complex and inter-related web of illicit activities and actors that the state itself at times 
becomes a part of the criminal enterprise” (Farah 90). This politicization of gang 
activity increases fears regarding the persistence of violence and extortion. Without 
confidence that the government will stop gang activity, many feel forced to leave to 
seek safety and stability elsewhere. While issues like corruption often call into question 
whether aid money would even be used effectively, it arguably creates an incentive for 
more financial resources as well as logistical support to be implemented in order to help
the region manage funds properly and achieve maximum impact.
Along with a lack of confidence in the strength of Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and 
Honduran governments, potential refugees do not find local police capable of 
41
combating gang problems, fueling desire to find protection across borders. These three 
governments host more gang members than police force members (Restrepo 6). This 
fact complicates law enforcement's ability to hold gang members accountable, 
showcasing strength in numbers and subsequently overall power in the Northern 
Triangle region. In recognition of the intense violence, weak policing, and sheer size of 
gang networks, Northern Triangle governments often turn to military power; however, 
this cannot be a long term solution. An increased emphasis on regular policing will not 
be effective while local officers both become consistently overshadowed by military 
personnel as well as continue to lack job security, training, community trust, and 
accountability (Malinowski 29). Lack of community trust, especially fueled by police 
participation in a corrupt and extortive system, prompts citizens to seek refugee status 
somewhere with competent policing and the accompanying lessened gang presence.
Just as with the government, people doubt the effectiveness of the police as well 
as often fear police officers’ potential corruption due to connections to gang life. For 
example, Cruz reports one study which asserted that  “66 percent of Guatemalans, 49 
percent of Salvadorans, and 47 percent of Hondurans believed that their police were 
implicated in criminal activities” (Cruz 47). Therefore, gang culture persists partially 
because citizens often do not trust that police workers will support them over gang 
members. Furthermore, without this basis of trust, gang-inflicted violence and threats 
often go unreported, increasing the power of crime organizations. All of this compounds
to prompt people to leave El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras for greater trust and 
less gang-intertwined corruption in law enforcement services.
42
Overall, the Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Honduran national governments have 
tried a variety of different strategies over the years to minimize the destruction of gangs 
and migration. For example, Northern Triangle governments adopted policies of mano 
dura or ‘heavy hand’ that “expanded police powers and enacted harsher punishments for
gang members” (Labrador). This ultimately failed, as subsequent mass incarceration 
made prisons ideal recruiting locations for gangs. In 2012, the Salvadoran President 
Mauricio Funes facilitated peace negotiations between MS-13 and M-18. However, this 
effort too fell short of success: “Despite the reduction in violence between the gangs, 
crimes against civilians, such as extortion, continued unabated, and when the peace deal
unraveled in 2014, killings more than doubled” (Labrador). Strategies from the 
Northern Triangle national governments have done little to permanently resolve the 
conflicts in the region; this can be additionally connected to the previously mentioned 
struggles of the Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Honduran governments to provide 
alternative educational and employment opportunities, disengage from corruption, and 
maintain an effective law enforcement network. Therefore, the United States 
government has continued to intervene in Northern Triangle gang violence into the 
present day.
In terms of current efforts, different presidential administrations of the United 
States government have implemented strategies in reaction to gang activity and 
subsequent refugee influxes, ultimately continuing the trend of less than successful 
interventions. As far as individual administrations, President George W. Bush pursued 
policies including the Millennium Challenge Corporation and Operation Streamline 
which increased trade and free market reforms in the region as well as criminal 
43
prosecution and deportation for migrants crossing illegally respectively (Labrador). 
President Barack Obama’s Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) 
focused on providing money to be used for improvements to law enforcement, 
counternarcotics, and justice systems (Labrador). Obama then amended his approach to 
introduce the Alliance for Prosperity (A4P), which created a “multiyear, multi–billion 
dollar effort by Northern Triangle governments and the Inter-American Development 
Bank to promote commerce and security in response to the 2014 influx of 
unaccompanied minors” (Labrador). Obama additionally followed up this action with 
mass deportations of migrants whose asylum claims had been denied in attempts to 
deter other refugee seekers. Although this summary only includes the most recent 
presidential administrations, this history of explicit intervention obviously extends back 
much further, as evidenced by the aforementioned CIA and US historical presence in 
the region as early as the 1950’s. Overall, the United States government has clearly 
struggled to formulate effective solutions to gang violence and related movement, 
allowing President Trump the freedom to implement new strategies, including the 
complete revocation of aid.
The Northern Triangle refugee crisis, as spurred by a complicated political 
history and persistent gang presence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, 
continues to impact many individuals and their decisions to migrate. Continued 
ignorance surrounding the Northern Triangle refugee crisis and a lack of 
acknowledgment of the very real threats these people attempt to escape has the potential
to kill people. For example, one study has shown a “documented eighty-three cases 
since 2014 where someone deported from the United States was killed within a few 
44
months of their return to Central America. Of these, forty-five cases were in El 
Salvador, three in Guatemala, and thirty-five in Honduras” (Medrano 134). The 
underlying push factors of gang activity including homicide, violence against women 
and children, and extortion, as strengthened by U.S. foreign policy as well as 
perpetuated by weak and corrupt government and law enforcement, should not be 
trivialized but instead acknowledged. With these deep-seeded problems in mind, this 
thesis now turns its attention specifically to President Trump and his administration’s 
relationship with Central America. Knowing and understanding the root issues 
dominating the NTCA is essential when considering the potential impacts and 
implications of revoking the very aid funding that was previously intended to relieve 
effected citizens and generate solutions to these dilemmas.
45
Chapter 7: Impacts of Trump’s Aid Decisions
Introduction
President Trump’s frequently shifting decisions regarding supplying aid to the 
Northern Triangle of Central America have wreaked havoc on people from the region as
well as their institutional counterparts. Countless individuals have stories and opinions 
related to the withdrawal and reduction of aid that provide valuable, human-oriented 
understandings of the negative impacts caused by Trump’s policy. Disparate actors 
possess justified opinions about the unfavorable effects of the removal of aid to the 
Northern Triangle. As discussed in the methods chapter, this thesis will draw from the 
stories of citizens from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, specifically including 
beneficiaries of aid programs, migrants, and journalists, statements from aid 
organization workers, and thoughts from government officials. Previous research and 
case studies that prominently feature interviews with migrants, excerpts from Central 
American newspapers, interviews with aid workers, and statements from U.S. 
politicians clearly point to the negative repercussions of aid reduction from the 
perspectives of individuals closest to the situation. With this documented support from 
various contributors, this thesis claims that financial aid suspension has been an 
ineffective migration deterrence strategy of the United States government. 
Opportunities in the United States serve as a strong pull factor while the troubles of the 
Northern Triangle, detailed in the historical context and root causes section, continue to 
function as strong push factors; although Trump intended for the removal of aid to deter
travel through igniting action from the NTCA national governments, the policy has 
instead created a void of support and reinforced powerful push factors.
46
Undeniably, there are many overlapping considerations and, in a situation as 
complicated as this, its nearly impossible to prove causality. Especially due to the 
relative recentness of these decisions, there is a lack of quantitative data to assert 
whether changes in aid and funding have a direct correlation with migration numbers 
increasing. However, the main goal of this thesis remains sharing the experiences of 
those changed by the loss of aid money and conglomerating opinions to present an 
overarching look at the overwhelmingly negative impacts, instead of definitively 
proving a numerical correspondence. Even without strict statistical backing, it seems 
reasonable to assert that making life more challenging by diminishing aid programs and 
therefore decreasing alternative options could push already struggling people over the 
edge and ultimately towards migration. Spohn, whose study will be covered with more 
depth later in the chapter, valuably asserts that Guatemalans, and by extension 
Salvadorans and Hondurans, would prefer “to stay with their families and in their native
country if they have a standard of living that provides for their needs such as food, 
education, and providing for children” (Spohn). This underlying assumption, adopted 
by this thesis project, speaks to the widespread desperation of individuals from the 
Northern Triangle to generate such intense migratory flows. If conditions were 
improving in the Northern Triangle due to the financial investment of the United States,
it stands to reason that people would prefer to not make the dangerous and uncertain 
trek across borders. With this presupposition in mind as well as the qualitative, story 
based approach of this research, this thesis will turn to some background information 
underlying considerations of aid revocation in the Northern Triangle.
47
For brief context, it remains important to clarify what exactly is meant when 
discussing U.S. foreign aid to the Northern Triangle countries; there have been frequent 
disparities between its function and how it has been characterized, especially by 
President Trump himself. As briefly conveyed in the introduction section, Trump 
framed the withdrawal and reduction of aid as punishment for the three national 
governments, when in reality the vast majority of aid instead goes towards 
“nongovernmental organizations, churches, charities and private contractors that carry 
out projects for the State Department and the United States Agency for International 
Development” (Malkin). The largest portion of these funds goes towards improving 
justice systems and preventing violence (Malkin). This logistical information 
fundamentally casts doubt upon the soundness of Trump’s strategies to deter migrants. 
The relationship between U.S. aid and the national governments of El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras lacks directness and therefore already seems to be a 
questionable option for creating political pressure. Instead, the humanitarian 
organizations listed above suffer the direct consequences. A concise look at specific 
programs from each nation follows in order to provide an even deeper understanding of 
the primary uses of humanitarian aid and highlight the types of programs being 
adversely impacted by reductions in funding.
Although the three Northern Triangle countries have similar problems and 
connected needs, the nations have distinct, unique programs through the assistance of 
USAID to target specific community concerns. For example, Guatemala receives the 
most U.S. aid, specifically focusing on economic growth, food security, and rural 
development. One organization, Feed the Future Guatemala, which focuses on farmer 
48
incomes and nutrition, anticipated receiving “$36 million over a five-year period from 
2017 to 2022” through the U.S. government to achieve projected goals (Specia). This 
funding is now in jeopardy due to Trump’s reduction in resources; organizers cannot be 
sure of their long term prospects to implement this important work. Avanzado con 
Libros is another union based in Honduras that was set to receive “$9.9 million from 
2017 to 2020” in order to provide needed books for teachers, students, and schools 
(Specia). Because Trump has expressed that reinstated aid will focus on issues of 
security and migration prevention, programs like Avanzado con Libros are highly likely
to continue to face financial uncertainty. USAID has even claimed that previous 
investments throughout Honduras positively “contributed to an increase in average 
income for tens of thousands of families, a reduction in homicides and an increased 
capacity to prosecute criminals” (Specia). This previous success makes the aid cuts 
seem even more puzzling by illogically risking regressions in progress by abruptly 
cutting off long-term assistance. Furthermore, the diminishment of mechanisms to 
maintain these previous investments of time and money compromises the sustainability 
of these accomplishments and the value of the taxpayer’s investments. Finally, in El 
Salvador, USAID funding has made a difference in programs like Government 
Integrity, which explicitly supports local governments in promoting accountability and 
transparency (Specia). If programs that reduce corruption lose significant funding in 
favor of focusing resources on issues like security, misuse of funds could more feasibly 
occur, ultimately nullifying the reinvestment of lesser amounts of aid.
49
Migrant Interviews and Case Studies
With these specific examples in mind, case studies that feature interviews and 
research about the impact of aid programs on residents of the Northern Triangle offer 
important stories and perspectives from migrants and would-be migrants themselves. 
While it would obviously have been ideal to directly conduct interviews, these articles 
offer an equally valuable alternative. Interviews and related data from beneficiaries of 
USAID funded programs and migrants regarding their motives behind relocating, 
especially as connected to push factors and stronger U.S. deterrence immigration 
policies, provide authentic accounts of what influences a person’s decision to emigrate.
Tim McDonnell produced an article for NPR that covers some reactions of 
Guatemalan residents to the Trump Administration’s aid freeze through in depth 
interviews. For example, interviewee Carlos Marroquín explained that his family began 
to receive around $60 per month from a program implemented by the INGO Save the 
Children and financed by USAID in November 2018 in order to purchase supplemental 
grocery staples unable to be grown on their corn farm (McDonnell). However, in 
August of 2019, he learned that the program would end a year earlier than than hoped 
due to Trump’s aid freeze, stranding Marroquín and others who relied on these funds to 
remain in Guatemala and avoid extreme poverty. Leslie Karina Azañón González, 
another beneficiary of the cash transfer program, went so far as to refer to the USAID 
funding as the “community's only lifeline” (McDonnell). This extreme statement speaks
to the isolation felt by community members who had humanitarian assistance abruptly 
taken away. This program specifically gave participants a reason remain in Guatemala, 
supplementing their limited incomes as well as providing a method to survive without 
50
more drastic measures like migration. Indeed, Mercy Corps conducted a survey of  “400
people who had participated in a two-year agricultural support program in Guatemala 
[and] found a 30% drop in ‘youth who reported seriously considering migrating 'all the 
time' or ‘frequently’’ after participating in the program” (McDonnell). While these 
programs are not solutions to root problems in and of themselves, the impacts should 
not be ignored or minimized. In an already vulnerable region, stability like that 
provided by nutrition and agricultural support programs make a difference in 
influencing migration. Mercy Corps additionally utilized USAID money to clean up 
streets and create new urban parks in Guatemala City, which interviewee Elvis Flores 
asserted led to increased investment in the community and helped “‘people feel like 
they can stay here.’” (McDonnell). Although such improvement projects do not 
fundamentally reduce gang life or increase safety levels, confidence in the potential for 
improvement and investment in bettering the area greatly influences would-be migrants 
to stay instead. However, the slashing of aid allocation has meant that although the 
NGO originally planned to complete 80 park projects, only 12 will be possible 
(McDonnell). The drastic reduction in the number of parks that will be created implies 
an equally drastic reduction in the number of Guatemalans that will be positively 
impacted by the additions to their communities. This in turn could increase migratory 
flows out of communities deemed inhospitable. Moreover, the termination of aid 
projects means the firing of employees who rely on a stable income from nonprofit 
partners: “The Save the Children office in Santa Cruz del Quiché […] will close. Before
the cuts, it employed more than 200 people, all Guatemalans” (McDonnell). The 
51
impacts of aid reduction reach farther than the automatic loss of funds; whole programs 
must be ended, effecting employment chains like that of the Save the Children office.
Monica Spohn’s research investigates Guatemalan emigrants’ motivations for 
emigrating, including a specific discussion regarding the impact of USAID investments.
There are some undeniable limitations to the application of this case study: Spohn only 
interviews eight people and only contacts individuals who chose to emigrate instead of 
decided against emigration. Although limited, this line of investigation remains 
compelling by asking direct questions about the influence of U.S. foreign policy and 
specifically USAID. Drawing from the personal stories of eight adult emigrants, Spohn 
determined that participants did not have much experience with aid programs; however,
four out of eight asserted that if they had access to such programs “they would not have 
made the journey to the U.S. and would have stayed in Guatemala with their families” 
(Spohn). These interviewees actually assert that even prior to Trump’s withholding of 
aid, USAID was not effectively addressing their needs of educational opportunities and 
jobs. This implies the need to increase the reach and content of aid programs to 
effectively discourage emigration, essentially the exact opposite from action advocated 
by President Trump. While 50% of the sample may not sound promising, one must 
remember that only eight individuals partook in the study. Furthermore, the individuals 
interviewed all actually emigrated, which could have ultimately influenced the answers 
they provided, as it can be hard to imagine a life without such an impactful event after it
has already taken place. Although aid programs were not available to the Guatemalans 
included in this sample, interviewees “indicated that they would help slow emigration if
they reach more people in need” (Spohn). Emigrating Guatemalans, the main target of 
52
the United States government, explicitly described how increased or sustained USAID 
projects would encourage individuals to remain in their communities of origin. These 
individuals also specifically requested the expansion of  development programs that 
target adults and address education as well as economic needs, aspects of humanitarian 
assistance largely ignored by President Trump’s restrictions surrounding the 
reinstatement of financial aid.
Hiskey et. al. similarly researched the underlying reasons for Honduran 
emigrants to move away from their country, explicitly exploring the extent to which 
knowledge of heightened U.S. immigration deterrence efforts influenced respondents' 
emigration decision. While this study does not specifically consider President Trump’s 
revocation of aid as a deterrence strategy, extrapolating the findings of Hiskey et. al. to 
the foreign aid situation produces valuable findings about the general ineffectiveness of 
such methods. For instance, through survey evidence from select municipalities in 
Honduras, it can be concluded that “these individuals persist in their migration plans 
even if they are fully aware of the dangers they are likely to encounter along the way 
and the high probability of deportation if they make it to the United States” (Hiskey 
430). Again, while not specifically referencing the impact of U.S. aid decisions, these 
findings speak to the overall ineffectiveness of deterrence strategies in mitigating 
migration. Push factors in the Northern Triangle are so potent that even being actively 
discouraged by U.S. government policies does not stop attempts to immigrate to the 
United States. Indeed, Hiskey et. al. offers an in-depth explanation of the attraction of 
deterrence strategy as well as its limitations:
That appeal rests on the idea that if individuals living in these contexts 
can just be convinced that emigration is a riskier alternative than staying 
53
home then they will decide to stay. Unfortunately, however, 
understanding why policymakers in the United States are likely to opt for
a strategy of deterrence based on detention and deportation does not 
make it an effective strategy. What our results point to is the inability of 
this approach to dissuade that subset of individuals who have directly 
experienced the cruelties of life in a high-crime context from taking a 
life-threatening chance to escape that reality. (Hiskey 442)
Again relating to the oft disregarded importance of push factors, deterrence strategies 
have repeatedly proved to be ineffective in the face of the concerns in the Northern 
Triangle region, which will remain entrenched without financial investment and 
support. Furthermore, it is not a just solution to simply convince potential emigrants 
that movement will be more dangerous than remaining in the often detrimental 
communities they currently reside in without addressing the root sources of that danger. 
This research also investigates the role knowledge surrounding the increasement and 
intensification of deterrence strategies plays into the decision to emigrate; Hiskey et. al. 
concluded that although the vast majority of respondents “were aware of the stricter US 
immigration policy regime, this awareness had no effect on their consideration of 
emigration as a viable strategy” (Hiskey 429). These findings can be projected on 
President Trump’s usage of aid reduction as faulty tool to reduce migration. Although 
would-be migrants will likely have an awareness of the United States’ opposition to 
their movement, this will not necessarily change their decision to be pushed towards the
United States by conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. With this logic, 
increasing aid allocation would be even more ideal as a method to reduce push factors 
and thus the desire to emigrate.
54
Northern Triangle Newspapers
Newspapers from journalists in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras allow an 
opportunity to view the aid dilemma from outside the lens of the United States. While 
one must be aware that journalists are singular people that cannot speak for whole 
nations or regions, their inclusion allows more global perspectives to be included. 
Furthermore, their thoughts often reflect the attitudes of their audiences or help guide 
their audiences towards certain conclusions. Additionally, while journalists are trained 
to be objective, opinion pieces and articles featuring interviews of other Central 
American citizens have been especially included to gain a better understanding of the 
repercussions from the aid decisions to those directly impacted.
The first article, an opinion piece for a Salvadoran newspaper, Alberto Valiente 
Thoresen discusses the nature of U.S. aid to his country of origin: “Sin embargo, sería 
erróneo caracterizar la ayuda estadounidense a estos países como mera caridad. Esta se 
ha justificado principalmente como una inversión para los Estados Unidos.  Por ello, 
debe ser tratada como tal. También debe considerarse como una obligación moral” 
(Valiente Thoresen). Rejecting the idea that USAID constitutes mere charity that the 
United States is not obligated to sustain, Valiente Thoresen instead asserts that 
government aid is not only an investment but a moral obligation due to the country’s 
previous interference in El Salvador. Speaking as a Salvadoran citizen, Valiente 
Thoresen demonstrates the frustration felt due to the United States conversely meddling 
and withdrawing without personal consequence while detrimentally effecting El 
Salvador. Valiente Thoresen goes on to discuss the power the United States commands 
over the poorer and smaller nation, writing, “Es claramente poco ético dejar que los 
55
aliados más débiles, quienes se han mantenido en la línea de fuego por los intereses de 
los Estados Unidos, se queden solos ante la adversidad, haciendo que la ayuda que ellos
necesitan con urgencia sea condicional a resultados que no se pueden entregar” 
(Valiente Thoresen). Again referring to the United States as owing the Central 
American nation for its involvement during the Salvadoran civil war, the author 
contends that El Salvador should not be held to such rigid standards of ending migration
while in need of assistance when the United States has been equally unable to achieve 
those same desired results. While not directly referencing the influence of aid reduction 
on migration decisions, Valiente Thoresen speaks more broadly to the longterm turmoil 
and therefore negative effects such financial choices will have on El Salvador as a 
country, a sentiment likely shared by readers.
Next, Christopher Sherman writes for a Guatemalan newspaper about the 
migration attempts of one Salvadoran woman. Although Sherman originates from the 
United States, he is currently a correspondent in Mexico City for The Associated Press 
possessing copious experience covering stories about migration and good relations with 
Spanish-language news sources. More importantly, he includes interview material with 
Central American natives that speaks to the role of Trump’s aid reduction in influencing
migration. Sherman specifically recounts the story of an attempted migrant woman who
had not heard about the most recent developments with U.S. government aid and 
connected negotiations to minimize the travel of asylum-seekers towards the United 
States: “El gobierno de Trump selló varios acuerdos con El Salvador, Guatemala y 
Honduras para frenar la llegada de migrantes a Estados Unidos. Ella nunca se había 
enterado de eso” (Sherman). The Salvadoran woman, unnamed for security, still tried to
56
emigrate twice with her three and nine-year old sons to reunite with her husband in the 
United States (Sherman). In this particular situation, Trump’s aid policies doubly failed,
as this woman remained determined to migrate both during the suspension of aid and 
when the Northern Triangle countries made asylum limiting deals to regain some 
funding.
In another article from Guatemala, Grecia Ortíz reports on recent statements by 
U.S. Congressman Elliot L. Engel regarding the impacts of Trump’s alterations to 
Northern Triangle aid. While this information could easily be instead included in the 
section about reactions from government officials, who is reporting this information and
who the author is reporting it to ultimately matters more. Ortíz elaborates on the recent 
developments regarding the partial reinstatement of aid through the commentary of 
Engel, the president of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, 
who newly asserted, “‘Al finalizar los programas y luego reiniciarlos, es probable que 
este enfoque también termine costando mucho más al contribuyente estadounidense a 
largo plazo con muchos menos resultados’” (Ortíz). Taking a very logical approach, 
Engel laments the financial ineffectiveness of the stoping and starting behind Trump’s 
aid decisions. Specifically, Engel claims that the United States “perdió más de un año y 
$400 millones en esfuerzo a largo plazo para abordar las causas profundas de la 
migración infantil y familiar” in favor of what he refers to as Trump’s “radical y 
antiinmigrante” agenda (Ortíz). While these arguments are similar to those expressed by
other U.S. government officials, Ortíz writes for a Guatemalan newspaper, specifically 
about “temas de interés para la comunidad migrante en Estados Unidos” (Ortíz). The 
author has determined that Engel’s perspectives are of special concern to Guatemalans 
57
and the connected community of Guatemalan migrants, thus indicating a sustained 
concern about the topic. Furthermore, by highlighting commentary that discusses the 
negative impacts of Trump’s policies on previous time and financial investments, the 
author indicates and addresses her readership’s preexisting interests regarding the 
failures behind the removal of aid.
In a article predating the official withdrawal of aid, a Honduran newspaper 
article quotes Trump claiming that the Northern Triangle countries can easily stop 
migration caravans from forming and simply choose not to because “‘quieren librarse 
de gente de su país, de ciertas personas’” (“Trump acusa”). This news source focused 
on the most ludicrous of Trump’s assertions, that the NTCA actively encourages 
individuals to migrate in order to get rid of certain citizens. Revealing projected, racist 
understandings of Central American migrants as criminals that their own government 
does not want, this article discredits Trump and his threats to remove aid in the eyes of 
its Honduran audience by pointing out the ridiculous beliefs the American President 
holds towards Central American migrants. While a direct relationship cannot be 
established, these sentiments expressed in the media undoubtedly influence Honduran 
citizens and potential migrants, ultimately creating a negative perception of deterrence 
strategies employed by the United States.
Aid Workers and Organizations
While migrants and Central American citizens are obviously the first 
populations impacted by Trump’s decisions to alter aid allocation to the Northern 
Triangle, aid workers and operations in the region have also been deeply shaped. Not 
only have they had to deal with the uncertainty of funding and the ability to continue 
58
performing their deeply needed services, but these individuals have extensive 
experience with the needs of their beneficiaries and therefore a strong sense of the 
potential negative effects of limiting aid. Their realities and accompanying stories have 
been included to reveal yet another perspective on the negative impacts caused by 
Trump’s aid policies.
In April of 2019, more than “70 organizations issued a statement in response to 
announcements by the Trump Administration” regarding the end of foreign assistance 
programs in the Northern Triangle through InterAction, an group that fosters the formal 
alliances of international NGOs and partners in the United States (“Community 
Reactions”). The contributors condemned the shortsighted approach and voiced 
concerns that this choice would ultimately undermine the nation’s own policy goals as 
well as make life more challenging for vulnerable people in El Salvador, Guatemala, 
and Honduras. Even before the effects of the aid limitations had fully set in, multitudes 
of field experts could ascertain the inevitable negative impacts on the communities they 
have worked with for extended periods of time and the ineffectiveness of such policies 
at ultimately deterring migration. Organizations including Mercy Corps, Project 
Concern International, Catholic Relief Services, and CARE International have all 
reported the need to curtail or terminate programs, leaving program recipients in 
uncertain standing (McDonnell). Traditional staples in these Central American 
communities, NGO’s and INGO’s have been forced into such an unexpectedly 
desperate position that they no longer possess the same influence in encouraging 
potential migrants to remain in their nation of origin. They cannot offer resources or 
even words of assurance, having been forced into an equally vulnerable position by the 
59
U.S. government. Rick Jones, a youth and migration advisor for the INGO Catholic 
Relief Services (CRS), voices his concern about the revocation of aid from the United 
States government, asserting, “‘If there is no US support for these people, there’s a 
boomerang effect where people are going to get desperate and say I have no other 
opportunity but to migrate’” (White). Supplying the perspective of an individual deeply 
familiar with both the push factors and pull factors facing would-be migrants, Jones 
candidly remarks on the significant responsibility the United States government has 
recently shirked in an effort to promote deterrence policies. Indeed, aid organization are
quick to point out that foreign humanitarian assistance already “accounts for less than 
one percent of the nation’s overall budget,” begging the question of the minimal impact 
on the U.S. budget versus the potential positive impacts of continuing assistance 
(White). Aid organizations want to help Northern Triangle citizens improve their lives 
and give individuals reasons to remain integrated in their Central American 
communities; however, many aid workers and organizations remain unable to assist 
without USAID funding, increasing the probability of immigration to the United States.
U.S. Government Officials
Finally, government officials located in the United States have expressed 
concern over President Trump’s humanitarian aid plans in the Northern Triangle. While
unlike the aforementioned actors these individuals are not on the ground experiencing 
the impacts of funding losses, many are well versed in the potential political as well as 
human ramifications of reducing aid to those in need. Their stories of concern about the 
anticipated negative impacts on migratory flows equally describe the ineffectiveness of 
Trump’s intended deterrence strategy.
60
The organization InterAction additionally compiled excerpts of statements about
President Trump’s Northern Triangle aid decision from various U.S. senators and 
representatives, all of which overwhelmingly commented on the counter-productivity of
ending investments that ultimately strive to prevent the outbreak of conflict 
(“Community Reactions”). Bipartisan condemnation of this aid reduction showcases the
great support for creating hope and reasons to stay through foreign assistance funding 
which, as many government leaders pointed out, has demonstrated successful results. 
Indeed, although Trump and his allies have often been vocal supporters of aid reduction
and confident in its ability to create the desires impact of encouraging the Northern 
Triangle to reduce migration, many other doubt the chosen methods: “Mr. Trump’s 
decision to end the aid to the Central American countries is likely to anger members of 
Congress from both parties, who have supported spending money to try to address the 
root causes of the violence that has caused migrants to flee those countries to come to 
the United States” (Rogers). Rarely in the present day United States government is there
bipartisan support regarding an aspect of immigration; however, aid for El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras fit that description. Countless senators and representatives 
acknowledged the importance of recognizing root causes forcing migration in order to 
effectively persuade individuals to remain in the Northern Triangle, instead of applying 
blindly damaging deterrence methods. Contrary to Trump’s stated goals, some 
government officials even expressed concern that “the Administration’s proposed 
foreign assistance cuts, combined with other policy shifts, could contribute to a relative 
decline in U.S. influence” in Central America (Meyer 19). This observation describes 
the irony of expecting a diminishment in financial influence to exert more control than 
61
an active financial presence and support. Overall, government officials, theoretically the
contributors closest to Trump, still express doubts over utilizing aid suspension as an 
effective deterrence strategy, commenting on the inevitable negative repercussions for 
migratory flows.
Conclusion
Numerous actors deeply familiar with conditions in the Northern Triangle of 
Central America have expressed concern about the impacts of Trump revoking aid to 
the region. Indeed, many have claimed that the reduction in aid will cause the exact 
opposite effect from what Trump intends; experts personally familiar with the situation 
assert that migratory outflows could increase due to the strengthening of pre-existing 
push factors without the mitigating support of USAID funding and associated 
humanitarian programs. While President Trump claims that reducing aid serves as an 
effective threat to the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to deter 
migration, interviews and commentaries from migrants, aid program beneficiaries, 
Central American journalists, aid organization workers, and U.S. politicians showcase a
contrasting understanding of the situation. Personal narratives and perspectives from 
those deeply invested in the situation affirm the negative consequences from Trump’s 
decisions to retract and partially reinstate U.S. government aid to the Northern Triangle.
62
Chapter 8: Conclusion
In conclusion, this thesis project aimed to investigate the impacts of President 
Trump’s removal and later reduction of humanitarian financial assistance to the 
Northern Triangle countries in Central America. By specifically exploring the personal, 
human-oriented stories of citizens from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, including 
beneficiaries of aid programs, migrants, and journalists, statements from aid 
organization workers, and thoughts from government officials, this thesis concludes that
Trump’s decisions can be expected to negatively effect the lives of those connected to 
the aid and subsequently fail to stem migratory flows. Indeed, some interviews and 
commentaries have asserted that negative ramifications have already begun to be felt. 
Although the Trump administration intended to reduce migration towards the United 
States by punishing NTCA governments and theoretically encouraging these nations to 
more effectively deter movement themselves, countless experts have instead insisted 
that eradicating support for aid programs diminishes supportive foundations within 
origin communities, thus prompting extreme actions like migration. While President 
Trump attempted to capitalize on deterrence immigration policies to stem migration, the
Administration failed to acknowledge the power of longterm push factors in the region 
and the role of USAID funding in locally managing those challenges and encouraging 
community investment over relocation.
Overall, there are copious opportunities to further this beneficial research. 
Firstly, more in-depth interviews in the Northern Triangle focusing on the opinions and 
experiences of the target groups featured throughout this analysis would prove 
especially valuable. While the primary information obtained clearly demonstrated the 
63
risks of Trump’s aid policies, generating more data specifically regarding the impacts of
aid programs on decisions to proceed with emigration could be particularly important. 
Additionally, Trump’s policies towards aid allocation to the Northern Triangle remain 
frequently changing; documenting and analyzing the impacts of continued alterations 
could prove interesting. Relatedly, because of the recent nature of these events, many 
long-term effects have not yet been felt by both Central Americans citizens and aid 
workers. Allowing time to pass before investigating further could allow for larger trends
to be documented and included in analysis.
Supporting this research and future variations remains critically necessary 
seeing as this work could have implications for various important political decisions in 
the United States as well as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Overall, the 
dilemma of migration from the Northern Triangle will not resolve itself, implying a 
need for immediate and, more importantly, effective interventions to be considered. 
While Trump’s problematic strategy of complete removal of aid is relatively new, the 
United States government has been involved in the region for decades with limited 
success. This project could serve as a jumping off point for unearthing potential courses
of action that will make a difference in U.S. policy success in the region as well as 
curbing the overall suffering of asylum-seekers. However, creating such an impact is 
likely to take time, increasing the justification for discovering the most impactful action 
in order to make a difference as soon as possible. Furthermore, this financial aid debate 
connects to a much wider set of immigration concerns. President Trump has made 
immigration a signature issue for his Administration, often generating polarizing 
debates between political parties. Trump has taken executive action on diverse aspects 
64
of immigration including parent-child separation at the Mexican border, travel bans 
from Muslim-majority countries, building an expanded wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, 
and the remain in Mexico program, related to the asylum limitation agreements signed 
by the Northern Triangle countries (“Candidate Tracker”). These varied, yet deeply 
connected contemporary social issues have a huge role in modern discourse regarding 
immigration. With the 2020 U.S. presidential election rapidly approaching, and 
incumbent President Donald Trump running for reelection, thorough examination of all 
of his immigration policies appears more important than ever. After affirming the 
general ineffectiveness and harm of his choices regarding aid to the Northern triangle, it
stands to reason that President Trump’s other immigration decisions should be carefully
considered for validity as well as level of harm towards migrants and other 
stakeholders, especially before a potential reelection.
65
Works Cited
Agnew, John. "The Asymmetric Border: The United States' Place in the World and the 
Refugee Panic of 2018." Geographical Review, vol. 109, no. 4, 2019, pp. 507-
26. EBSCO, doi:10.1111/gere.12333. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.
“Barrio 18 Profile.” InSight Crime, 11 Mar. 2019, www.insightcrime.org/el-salvador-
organized-crime-news/barrio-18-profile/. Accessed 14 May 2020.
Boyd, Herb. "Trump: No More Aid for Three Central American Countries." New York 
Amsterdam News, vol. 110, no. 14, 2019, pp. 4.
Campos, Carlos Oliva, and Gary Prevost. “The Trump Administration in Latin 
America: Continuity and Change.” The International Journal of Cuban Studies, 
vol. 11, no.1, 2019, pp. 13-23. ProQuest, libproxy.uoregon.edu/login?
url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2310654435?accountid=14698. 
Accessed 31 Oct. 2019.
“Candidate Tracker: Donald J. Trump.” Council on Foreign Relations, 2020, 
www.cfr.org/election2020/candidate-tracker/donald-j.-trump?
gclid=Cj0KCQjw17n1BRDEARIsAFDHFex5R1MHCnd85pM7-
PttG7yiQfkE_2TEfIOHr8roTzxuAgd6vq9rWTwaAqSGEALw_wcB#chapter-
title-0-9. Accessed 20 May 2020.
Cantor, David J. “As Deadly as Armed Conflict? Gang Violence and Forced 
Displacement in the Northern Triangle of Central America.” Agenda 
Internacional, vol. 23, no. 34, 2016, pp. 77-97. Academic OneFile, 
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.doty=as&v=2.1&u=s8492775&it=DIourl&s=RELEVAN
CE&p=AONE&qt=SN~1027-6750~~TI~%22’As%20deadly%20as%20armed
%22~~VO~23~~SP~77~~IU~34&lm=DA~120160000&sw=w&authCount=1. 
Accessed 7 Mar. 2018.
Carlson, Elizabeth, and Anna Marie Gallagher. "Humanitarian Protection for Children 
Fleeing Gang-based Violence in the Americas." Journal on Migration and 
Human Security, vol. 3, no. 2, 2015, pp. 129-158. Academic OneFile, 
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=s8492775&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA421524768&it=r&asid=f5bdb817f6efcf41d770346054dd1c0b. Accessed 
7 Feb. 2018.
Cartasegna, Anna, Caitlin Scott, and Carli Wood. “Human Rights in Central America.” 
Teach-in Leave Behind, 8 Nov. 2015, 
docs.google.com/document/d/1Aa7pfcD30_0HluDeUcqTtPGXKmK47m26o9J
HoXxeKVo/edit. Accessed 3 May 2020.
Chattopadhyay, Sumana. “'You Are Not Welcome Here!’ Understanding News 
Coverage of Central American Migrant Families in Trump's America." Journal 
66
of Family Communication, vol. 19, no. 3, 2019, pp. 177-90. EBSCO, doi: 
10.1080/15267431.2019.1632866. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.
Colburn, Forrest, and Arturo Cruz. "Trouble in the 'Northern Triangle.'" Journal of 
Democracy, vol. 27, no. 2, 2016, pp. 79-85. Project Muse, 
doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0024. Accessed 7 Feb. 2018.
“Community Reactions to Cut-off in Foreign Assistance to Northern Triangle 
Countries.” InterAction, 8 May 2019, www.interaction.org/blog/community-
reactions-to-cut-off-in-foreign-assistance-to-northern-triangle-countries/. 
Accessed 18 May 2020.
Cone, Jason, and Marc Bosch Bonacasa. "Invisible War: Central America's Forgotten 
Humanitarian Crisis." Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 24, no. 2, 2018, pp. 
225-39. EBSCO, 
web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer/vid=1&sid=9fcc1424-1839-
4f5a-9c84-941907014ca0%40sessionmgr4008. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.
Cruz, José. "The Root Causes of the Central American Crisis." Current History, vol. 
114, no. 769, 2015, pp. 43-48. ProQuest, libproxy.uoregon.edu/login?url=http://
search.proquest.comdocview/1655119401?accountid=1469. Accessed 7 Feb. 
2018.
Dutt, Anjali, and Danielle Kohfeldt. "Assessing the Relationship between Neoliberal 
Ideology and Reactions to Central American Asylum Seekers in the United 
States." Journal of Social Issues, vol. 75, no. 1, 2019, pp.134-52. EBSCO, doi: 
10.1111/josi.12312. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.
Farah, Douglas. “Central America's Northern Triangle: A Time for Turmoil and 
Transitions.” Prism: A Journal of the Center for Complex Operations, vol. 4, no.
3, 2013, pp. 88-109. Proquest, search.proquest.com/docview/1441703627?
accountid=14698&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo. Accessed 10 Mar. 
2018.
Fernando Torres-Gil, Juan, and Courtney Demko. "The 2018 Mid-Term Elections: 
Backlash to the Backlash on Immigrants, Diversity, and Divisiveness." 
Generations, vol. 42, no. 4, 2018, pp 61. EBSCO, 
web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=ec9fe038-5413-
4e26-ab29-71dbe9237c97%40sessionmgr101. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.
Garcia-Moreno, Claudia, et. al. “Understanding and Addressing Violence Against 
Women.” World Health Organization, 2012, apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/
10665/77421/WHO_RHR_12.38_eng.pdf;jsessionid=DC1D43D3BF46FF6A24
DF0C77A3444481?sequence=1. Accessed 14 May 2020.
Grunstein, Judah. "The Failed Assumptions Behind Central America's Refugee Crisis.” 
World Politics Review, 2019, pp. 1-4. EBSCO, libproxy.uoregon.edu/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
67
direct=true&db=aph&AN=138195235&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site. 
Accessed 22 Oct. 2019.
Hiskey, Jonathan T., et al. “Leaving the Devil You Know: Crime Victimization, US 
Deterrence Policy, and the Emigration Decision in Central America.” Latin 
American Research Review, vol. 53, no.3, 2018, pp. 429-447. ProQuest, 
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.25222/larr.147. Accessed 31 Oct. 2019.
“‘If you come back, we’ll kill you’: Central Americans Seek Refuge in US only to be 
Sent Home-Video.” The Guardian, 4 Aug. 2016, 
theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/aug/04/central-american-refugees-us-
mexico-border-video. Accessed 10 Mar. 2018.
Ignatian Solidarity Network. 2018, ignatiansolidarity.net/iftj/. Accessed 3 May 2020.
“The IRC's Impact at a Glance.” International Rescue Committee, 2020, 
www.rescue.org/page/ircs-impact-glance. Accessed 9 May 2020.
Labrador, Rocio Cara and Danielle Renwick. “Central America’s Violent Northern 
Triangle.” Council on Foreign Relations, 26 June 2018. 
www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-northern-triangle. Accessed
9 November 2018.
Malinowski, Tom, and Charles Blaha. "De-Militarizing Civilian Security in Mexico and
the Northern Triangle." Prism: A Journal of the Center for Complex Operations,
vol. 5, no. 4, 2015, pp. 26-33. Proquest, 
search.proquest.com/docview/1762303341?accountid=14698&rfr_id=info
%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo. Accessed 10 Mar. 2018.
Malkin, Elisabeth. “Where Does Aid to Central America Go? Police Officers, Farmers 
and NGOs.” The New York Times, 1 Apr. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/
world/americas/trump-central-america-aid.html. Accessed 18 May 2020.
Masetta-Alvarez, Katelyn. "Tearing Down the Wall between Refuge and Gang-Based 
Asylum Seekers: Why the United States Should Reconsider Its Stance on 
Central American Gang-Based Asylum Claims." Case Western Reserve Journal 
of International Law, vol. 50, no. 1/2, 2018, pp. 377-409. EBSCO, 
web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=0f3da795-19ae-
45fa-ad38-3af6bd8a2db8%40pdc-v-sessmgr03. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.
Mcdonnell, Tim. "Trump Froze Aid to Guatemala. Now Programs Are Shutting Down."
NPR, 17 Sept. 2019, 
www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/09/17/761266169/trump-froze-aid-to-
guatemala-now-programs-are-shutting-down. Accessed 6 Nov. 2019.
Medrano, Celia. "Securing Protection for De Facto Refugees: The Case of Central 
America’s Northern Triangle." Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 31, no. 2, 
68
2017, pp. 129-42. Cambridge University Press Journals Complete, doi: 10.1017/
S0892679417000041. Accessed 10 Mar. 2018.
Meyer, Peter J. “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean: FY2018 
Appropriations.” Current Politics and Economics of South and Central America,
vol. 12, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-31. ProQuest, libproxy.uoregon.edu/login?url=https://
search-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/docview/2273146495?
accountid=14698. Accessed 3 Nov. 2019.
“Migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants: What’s the difference?” 
International Rescue Committee, 11 Dec. 2018, 
www.rescue.org/article/migrants-asylum-seekers-refugees-and-immigrants-
whats-difference. Accessed 9 May 2020.
Miroff, Nick. “President Trump says he will unfreeze security aid to Central American 
countries.” The Washington Post, 16 Oct. 2019, 
www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/president-trump-says-he-will-unfreeze-
security-aid-to-central-american-countries/2019/10/16/69438a94-ef7c-11e9-
b648-76bcf86eb67e_story.html. Accessed 18 May 2020.
“MS13 Profile.” InSight Crime, 11 Mar. 2019, www.insightcrime.org/el-salvador-
organized-crime-news/mara-salvatrucha-ms-13-profile/. Accessed 14 May 2020.
Ortíz, Grecia. “Engel advierte del tiempo perdido para CA por recorte de ayuda de 
Trump.” La Hora, 14 Apr. 2020, lahora.gt/engel-advierte-del-tiempo-perdido-
para-ca-por-recorte-de-ayuda-de-trump/. Accessed 18 May 2020.
Oxford Consortium for Human Rights. 2020, www.oxfordconsortium.org/. Accessed 3 
May 2020.
"Remarks in an Exchange with Reporters Prior to Departure for Houston, Texas." Daily
Compilation of Presidential Documents, 2018, pp. 1-8. JSTOR, 
web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=1&sid=0ab0342d-ccfb-479a-aa6a-7c9be3f7065e%40sessionmgr4006. 
Accessed 22 Oct. 2019.
Restrepo, Dan, and Ann Garcia. The Surge of Unaccompanied Children from Central 
America: Root Causes and Policy Solutions. Ebook, Center for American 
Progress, 2014.
Rogers, Katie, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, and Michael D. Shear. “Trump Directs State 
Dept. to End Aid to 3 Central American Countries.” The New York Times, 29 
Mar. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/trump-mexico-illegal-
immigration.html. Accessed 18 May 2020.
Rosenberg, Jessica. “Why are You Seeking Refuge?: Conducting Evaluations of Central
American Asylum Seekers.” Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, vol. 4, 
69
no. 4, 2019, pp.229-237. ProQuest, doi:10.1007/s41134-019-00097-x. Accessed
3 Nov. 2019.
Schechter, Peter, Jason Marczak, and Rachel DeLevie-Orey. "Beyond the Headlines: A 
Strategy for Us Engagement with Latin America in the Trump Era." Atlantic 
Council, 2017, pp. 21-35. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep03701.7?
seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
Sherman, Christopher. “El sueño americano del migrante antes y después de Trump.” 
La Hora, 14 Dec. 2019, lahora.gt/el-sueno-americano-del-migrante-antes-y-
despues-de-trump/. Accessed 18 May 2020.
Shesgreen, Deirdre. “How US foreign policy in Central America may have fueled the 
migrant crisis.” USA Today, 25 Dec. 2018, 
www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/21/has-united-states-foreign-
policy-central-america-fueled-migrant-crisis-donald-trump/2338489002/. 
Accessed 16 May 2020.
Specia, Megan. “Trump Wants to Cut Aid to Central America. Here Are Some of the 
Dozens of U.S.-Funded Programs.” The New York Times, 2 Apr. 2019, 
www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/world/americas/trump-funding-central-
america.html. Accessed 18 May 2020.
Spohn, Monica P. "Emigrants' Stories of Foreign Aid and Their Reasons for 
Emigration: Guatemalans on the Move." Universitas Psychologica, vol. 16, no. 
5, 2017, pp. 21-35. dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-5.esfa. Accessed 15 
Oct. 2019.
Tegel, Simeon. "Aid Cuts Won't Slow Central America's Exodus." U.S. News - The 
Civic Report, 2019, pp. C20-C22. EBSCO, 
web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/ehost/detail/detail?
vid=0&sid=f89334ba-138f-4364-abdd-7c2a17859f93%40sdc-v-
sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=1358
73465&db=aph. Accessed 22 Oct. 2019.
“Trump acusa a Honduras, Guatemala y El Salvador de «animar» las caravanas.” La 
Tribuna, 23 Jan. 2019, www.latribuna.hn/2019/01/23/trump-acusa-a-honduras-
guatemala-y-el-salvador-de-animar-las-caravanas/. Accessed 18 May 2020.
Valdés, Javier. "Save the Lives of Northern Triangle Migrants." Americas Quarterly, 
vol. 10, no. 3, 2016, pp. 84-87. Proquest, 
search.proquest.com/docview/1935198240/accountid=14698&rfr_id=info
%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo. Accessed 10 Mar. 2018.
Valiente Thoresen, Alberto. “La ayuda económica de EE.UU. a El Salvador es una 
obligación moral.” El Faro, 24 Apr. 2019, 
elfaro.net/es/201904/columnas/23245/La-ayuda-econ%C3%B3mica-de-EEUU-
a-El-Salvador-es-una-obligaci%C3%B3n-moral.htm. Accessed 18 May 2020.
70
White, Christopher. “Catholic Aid Workers Urge Trump to Release Funds for Central 
America during Pandemic.” Crux Catholic Media, 12 May 2020, cruxnow.com/
church-in-the-usa/2020/05/catholic-aid-workers-urge-trump-to-release-funds-
for-central-america-during-pandemic/. Accessed 18 May 2020.
Wilson, Jill H., et al. "Recent Migration to the United States from Central America: 
Frequently Asked Questions." Congressional Research Service, 2019, pp. 1-22. 
fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45489.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov. 2019.
71