SR353 asks the Secretary of State to produce, under section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act, a statement that catalogues credible information about human rights violations in Costa Rica tied to people the United States has removed there. The resolution instructs that the statement be prepared with the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser and delivered to relevant congressional committees within 30 days of adoption.
This request drills down on a narrow set of risks: unlawful arrest and detention, torture, enforced disappearance, trafficking, and the treatment and legal status of non‑Costa Rican nationals removed to Costa Rica by U.S. authorities. It also asks for assessments of U.S. pre‑removal procedures, any agreements or transactions with Costa Rica, the risk that U.S. security assistance could enable abuse, and a list of people sent in 2025 — information that can shape congressional oversight, assistance decisions, and litigation strategies tied to removals and deportation practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the Secretary of State to submit a 502B(c) country‑practice statement on Costa Rica within 30 days, prepared with the State Department’s DRL bureau and Office of the Legal Adviser. The statement must inventory alleged violations tied to people removed to Costa Rica by the United States and describe U.S. actions and assessments before and after removals.
Who It Affects
State Department (DRL and Legal Adviser), DHS/ICE (operational partners on removals), congressional oversight committees, human rights NGOs, and non‑citizens removed to Costa Rica by the U.S. government — plus the Government of Costa Rica as a subject of scrutiny.
Why It Matters
The request couples human‑rights reporting with specific operational details (pre‑removal assessments, assurances, lists of individuals, and potential use of security assistance), which concentrates oversight on the intersection of removals policy and bilateral relations and could inform future assistance or enforcement decisions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SR353 uses the Foreign Assistance Act’s 502B(c) mechanism to force a consolidated, documentary answer from the State Department about how Costa Rica treats people the United States has transferred there. The resolution requires the Secretary of State to produce a statement — drafted with the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the office that handles legal advice — and deliver it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee within 30 days of adoption.
The bill structures the requested statement into three buckets. First, it asks for all available credible information on categories of rights abuses — arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and cruel treatment, enforced disappearances and killings, trafficking (including forced labor), and the legal status and protections afforded to non‑citizens sent to Costa Rica by U.S. actors.
Second, it demands a description of U.S. government steps to prevent or respond to such practices, including whether the U.S. performs individualized pre‑removal assessments and seeks assurances that Costa Rica will not onward‑transfer, persecute, or otherwise harm those removed. Third, it lists a set of documentary and analytical must‑haves: whether U.S. security assistance could be used in ways that enable abuses, assessments of detention conditions, records of agreements and financial transactions, a roster of individuals sent in 2025, and a log of 2025 meetings between Costa Rican and Washington officials.Practically, the resolution aims to create a single, auditable package for congressional oversight that ties specific operational facts (who was sent, what assurances were obtained, what pre‑removal vetting occurred) to human rights outcomes on the ground.
The request explicitly links the reporting to the statutory definition of "security assistance," signaling congressional interest in whether U.S. assistance inadvertently supports rendition, trafficking, or detention practices. It also asks for evidence that Costa Rica would comply with U.S. court orders for return, a detail that bears on ongoing litigation and individual habeas or custody disputes.While SR353 prescribes the content of the statement in detail, it does not itself create new legal remedies or sanctions; instead, it assembles the factual record that Congress or litigants could later use.
The operational details requested — including lists of persons transferred and copies of agreements or assurances — will test the State Department’s capacity to collect and declassify interagency materials and will raise diplomatic and privacy questions during production.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution requires the Secretary of State to deliver the requested 502B(c) statement to the Senate and House foreign‑affairs committees not later than 30 days after the resolution’s adoption.
The statement must be prepared in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser.
SR353 focuses narrowly on non‑Costa Rican nationals the United States has removed to Costa Rica, asking for allegations of arrest, torture, enforced disappearance, trafficking, and the legal status afforded to those individuals.
The resolution directs an assessment of whether U.S. security assistance (as defined in 502B(d)) provided to Costa Rica could be used to support rendition, trafficking, detention, or imprisonment of those removed.
SR353 demands documentary details: any agreements or transactions with Costa Rica related to removals, a list of individuals sent to Costa Rica in 2025, and a summary of 2025 meetings between Costa Rican officials and Washington‑based U.S. officials.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Secretary of State must submit a 502B(c) statement within 30 days
This subsection sets the procedural hook: the Senate requests that the Secretary of State present a country‑practice statement under 22 U.S.C. 2304(c) (section 502B(c)) to the two congressional foreign‑affairs committees. It fixes a firm delivery window — not later than 30 days after adoption — and specifies interoffice collaboration, naming the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the Office of the Legal Adviser as participants. Practically, that concentrates responsibility at State for collating interagency inputs (including from DHS, DOJ, and likely U.S. embassies) on a short timetable.
Catalog of alleged human‑rights violations tied to U.S. removals
Subsection (b)(1) enumerates the categories of abuse the statement must cover: arbitrary/unlawful arrest and detention; due‑process violations; torture and cruel treatment; enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killing; trafficking and forced labor; and the broader question of what legal status and protections Costa Rica affords to non‑citizens removed there by U.S. authorities. The clause repeatedly centers on non‑Costa Rican nationals transferred by the U.S., which narrows the inquiry to removals operations and their aftermath rather than country‑wide practices alone.
U.S. Government actions and pre‑removal assessments
This subsection asks the statement to explain what the U.S. has done to promote human‑rights compliance and to deter harmful practices by Costa Rica. It explicitly requests descriptions of efforts to call out abuses publicly or privately, to disassociate U.S. support from rights‑violating acts, and to perform individualized pre‑removal assessments of how Costa Rica will treat specific people — including whether Costa Rica might send them on to a third country or provide legal status if they remain. Those mechanics are central: they ask the State Department to document not only outcomes but the preventive, diplomatic, and vetting processes the United States used or declined to use.
Documentary and analytic items: security assistance, detention conditions, assurances, and 2025 records
Subsection (b)(3) is a catchall for highly specific evidence: an assessment about whether U.S. security assistance could be used to support rendition/trafficking/detention (3(A)); any pre‑removal analyses of conditions faced by transferred individuals (3(B)); assessments of detention facilities and allegations of torture (3(C)); actions to secure compliance with U.S. court orders (3(D)); efforts to mitigate risks of detention, torture, or disappearances (3(E–F)); records of agreements or transactions tied to removals (3(G)); a roster of individuals transferred in 2025 (3(H)); steps to secure releases or returns of wrongfully removed people (3(I)); assurances sought or received before transfers and regarding onward transfer (3(J–K)); and a summary of 2025 meetings between Costa Rican and Washington officials (3(L)). Collectively, these items require State to pull contract/financial records, diplomatic cables, interagency analyses, and operational logs, which has both evidentiary and classification implications.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Non‑Costa‑Rican nationals removed to Costa Rica — the resolution directs a focused inquiry that could surface evidence of mistreatment, departure from due‑process norms, or wrongful removals, providing advocates and courts with a consolidated factual record.
- Congressional oversight committees (Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs) — they receive a structured, statutory‑framed report that supports oversight, potential hearings, and decisions on assistance or legislation.
- Human‑rights NGOs and litigants — the required documentary and analytic items (assessments, lists of individuals, agreements, meeting logs) create source material useful for monitoring, advocacy, and litigation challenging removal practices.
- State Department human‑rights and legal officers — receiving explicit congressional direction clarifies priorities and may strengthen their leverage in bilateral diplomacy when seeking assurances or monitoring detention conditions.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Department (DRL and Office of the Legal Adviser) — the department must marshal interagency information, collect classified and operational records, and produce a comprehensive statement on a 30‑day timetable, creating personnel and declassification burdens.
- DHS/ICE and DOJ — operational agencies that executed removals will likely need to produce records, defend procedures, and possibly revise pre‑removal assessments, increasing legal and administrative workload.
- Government of Costa Rica — the country becomes the subject of intensified congressional scrutiny, which carries reputational and diplomatic costs and may require Costa Rica to respond to inquiries or renegotiate assurances.
- U.S. security assistance programs and implementing partners — if the report identifies risk that assistance could be used in rights‑abusive ways, programs face additional vetting, conditionality, or congressional pressure that can complicate cooperation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: Congress wants urgent, transparent oversight to protect vulnerable people and ensure U.S. assistance and removals don't enable abuse, while diplomatic practice and operational security push for confidentiality, slower interagency vetting, and flexibility in immigration enforcement — a clash between immediate transparency and the practical constraints of statecraft and operations.
The resolution demands detailed operational evidence (personnel lists, agreements, meeting summaries, pre‑removal assessments) and asks the State Department to produce it quickly. Two implementation frictions follow: interagency materials that document removal decisions are often operational, classified, or sensitive to ongoing litigation, so compiling a public or even classified but congressional report within 30 days may force redaction, delay, or friction between oversight and operational secrecy.
Relatedly, the bill’s repeated emphasis on "people who are not citizens of Costa Rica but have been removed to Costa Rica by the United States Government" creates definitional friction — does it include people transited through Costa Rica, people onward‑transferred to third countries, or individuals removed prior to 2025? The narrower the definition, the easier to produce the documents; the broader the definition, the higher the evidentiary and diplomatic load.
Another tension lies in consequences. SR353 compiles a granular factual record but does not prescribe sanctions, conditionality, or a remedy pathway; that leaves open how Congress or agencies should act on adverse findings.
The report’s findings could prompt policy changes, restrictions on assistance, or litigation — but the resolution itself is only an information request. Finally, the requirement to list people sent in 2025 and summarize meetings risks privacy or confidentiality concerns and could create diplomatic fallout if assurances obtained in private are publicly characterized as inadequate or unreliable.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.