From your linked information, it appears that Bukele is going to New York, and they seem to be planning to talk about gang member repatriation issues.  So, sure maybe bitcoin will end up coming up during their conversation/meeting, perhaps?

We have learned through various news portals that El Salvador's president and US president have already held a meeting. In fact the most important point of their discussion in our view was to discuss the exiled persons, even it has become clear that Abrego Garcia was a terrorist so he would not be released in any way. Since these two presidents they know and love Bitcoin, I thought they might have a very important discussion about Bitcoin but now they have not mentioned anything about Bitcoin at this meeting. By the way here are all the aspects of the meeting between these two presidents.

Bukele says at White House that El Salvador won't return mistakenly deported man

Damn, El Salvador is about to become the USA's Global prison for non American citizens.

Like Guantanamo Bay, but bigger and cheap.

Especially the Mexican cartel members in US prison.

That's the actual reason for the meeting and not bitcoin as reserves even though it might slides in at some point of the discussion which may be private for now.

The world knows very well how bold Nayib Bukele has been about Bitcoin, so when Nayib Bukele travels to America and meets Donald Trump, everyone has the impression that Nayib Bukele must have had some discussions with Donald Trump about Bitcoin. Since El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele traveled to America with another main purpose, if President Nayib Bukele had any Bitcoin-related conversations with Donald Trump, then that matter may not be known through social media now, but if the two of them discuss Bitcoin in general and discuss if the president can take some better steps regarding El Salvador, then I think that is definitely good for El Salvador's Bitcoin.

I don't see any reason to celebrate various kinds of likely unlawful extraditions from the United States to El Salvador or to any other country, and Trump's attempt to play around with ambiguities in the US justice system and/or international law ambiguities/weaknesses to the extent that international law might need to exist to send US residents and/or US citizens to foreign countries without any kind of due process, including notice and/or a right to a hearing. 

There should be basic rights that anyone has whether they are actually a criminal or not, so that authorities do not just make shit up and end up sending innocent people outside of the country and then proclaim that they don't have rights anymore or they are subject to the laws of another jurisdiction.  Surely constitutional crises can be created when various branches of the government do not have checks and balances.   

In the case of Garcia, there was even an admission from the US Govt that Garcia had been mistakenly sent to El Salvador, so I doubt that the answers are clear or that there are agreements about what should be done or could be done, even if some guys might believe that it is a good idea to take away due process rights with a belief that ONLY the bad guys will end up getting punished more efficiently... and surely so many years (centuries even) in the US, there has been touting that it is better to allow some potentially guilty folks go free than to lock up innocent people.  We do not need to disagree, yet that remains part of the justification that so called "criminals" are allowed to have vigorous advocacy in the USA legal system.

Sure we could attempt to mix bitcoin idealism with these matters too, and many bitcoiners advocate for less government and sometimes we might also start to conclude that laws are no longer our friends because they are abused by governments or they are tools of government or they are used by the supposed "criminals" to tie up the hands of government, yet I doubt that the answers are so clear in terms of just presuming that so many forms of government are just contributing to injustices and/or inefficiencies, even though there could be some truth in regards to various spins that can be made.

I doubt that any of these matters are black and white, yet any of us should get worried if people are allowed to be sent to other countries through the hands of governments (or even if it were to be through private institutions) without any due process rights such as notice and a hearing.  I am not going to claim that injustices don't already take place, and that due process rights are always followed, yet sometimes we might need to consider some of the details merely than listening to either political spins or even sometimes media spins on the matter before coming to conclusions that presume the government is acting in good faith or that they have the various powers that they claim to have over citizens.


Why do we need to presume that they talked about bitcoin or that they did not talk about bitcoin?

My main point in my initial response to bitcoin_mining was that the earlier linked article did not say anything in terms of the meeting between them being about bitcoin or relating to bitcoin even though bitcoin_mining made his post all about bitcoin and then linked an article talking about extradition issues and not even mentioning bitcoin, yet supposing that they were meeting about bitcoin and then continuing to suppose that they were meeting about bitcoin.   

Sure, it is possible that Bukele and Trump may have ended up talking about bitcoin, yet we cannot presume that they did or that they did not talk about bitcoin merely based on their having had met and their having some interest in the topic of bitcoin. Politics can become complicated, including if the various aspects of bitcoin might be overlapped into other kinds of policy priorities and/or even ways of spinning matters, since Bukele has continued to be a quite popular leader, yet he could still end up getting caught up in some political matters (and even battles) that might not have had been his intentions.

People just got hype on that situation since many think that meet up has something to do with Bitcoin while in fact they discuss about other matters related to that extradition happened. People are buying wrongfully the news spread and we can't also blame people to believe that since there are news article saying that Bukele and Trump meet to discuss about Bitcoin.

I think its not the best set up to talk about Bitcoin and  related to it since they are discussing about other concerns related to the case of Garcia.

There's also possibilities that they talk about Bitcoin especially both of them is pro Bitcoin but maybe they just made a short chit chat about it. But for sure in future their are perfect time that Trump and Bukele including global leaders will talk serious matter about Bitcoin.

I think I once heard of the interest of Panama making bitcoin a legal currency for payment in the country and the whole bill was passed and since then, we don't hear anything further more on the status of whether it was accepted or not, also, we couldn't find out if that same move also requires a second reading to increase their deliberations over the matter or not, but if was something that will be well appreciated by us all in bitcoin community seeing that countries like Panama, Brazil, Singapore, US, UK and many others could give Bitcoin the support needed for a legal tender adoption and from there other countries could pick up.

There had been several countries give lip service the possibility of allowing bitcoin as legal tender. El Salvador went the furthest, and it might well be difficult to consider CAR as very comparable to El Salvador, since CAR seemed to have little to no staying power and they were greatly distracted into various shitcoining so difficult to take the CAR situation as serious even though they did receive quite a bit of publicity over their having had made bitcoin legal tender.

Surely, in El Salvador it seems that there had been a lot of concessions to take back the legal tender status, since I am not sure how there can be any proclamation that bitcoin is legal tender if there is not some efforts to compel that it needs to be accepted for the satisfying of debts (or to transact alongside with other possible payment options).   I think that prior to the latest agreement with the IMF, El Salvador was not enforcing that merchants had to accept bitcoin, but the law at least stated that they had to accept bitcoin, which at least created incentives for merchants to set up such abilities to accept bitcoin.  Also, the government agreeing that it will not accept bitcoin for the payment of taxes seems to be a pretty large concession to lower the importance/status of bitcoin.

I suppose that the claims that El Salvador is still engaging in bitcoin education efforts and they are not hostile to bitcoin - these are still elevating the importance/status of bitcoin in their jurisdiction, yet surely it continues to be interesting to see how El Salvador might pass through these times, and hopefully their getting involved with complicated extradition relations with the USA does not add complications to their abilities to focus on bitcoin freedom in the country - even though the extraditions matters don't seem directly related to bitcoin, they do involve ways for El Salvador to raise money from outside sources (blood money?).

Well your statement that I bolded above sparked me in another idea: 

"The country has constricted the use of Bitcoin for tax purposes. Such things are definitely a proposal to discourage people from using Bitcoin." 

Even though the IMF loan restricts El Salvador from accepting tax payments in bitcoin, there still is the dynamic in El Salvador, as far as I remember, that transacting in bitcoin does not create any taxable event in El Salvador, such as a capital gains tax.