US sides with El Salvador on eliminating presidential term limits, prompting democracy debate
Donald Trump
Federal agenciesFacebookTweetLink
Follow
The US State Department has voiced rare support for El Salvador's decision to abolish presidential term limits, paving the way for President Nayib Bukele to seek indefinite reelection. Critics argue the controversial move undermines democratic stability.
El Salvador's legislature, controlled by Bukele's Nuevas Ideas party, approved the constitutional amendment swiftly in a vote late last week, sparking immediate backlash domestically and internationally. The amendment clears the way for presidents to serve multiple consecutive terms.
Now, the US is publicly backing the Central American nation's leadership.
'El Salvador's Legislative Assembly was democratically elected to advance the interests and policies of their constituents,' a State Department spokesperson said in a statement. 'Their decision to make constitutional changes is their own. It is up to them to decide how their country should be governed.'
US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have previously praised Bukele's effectiveness in reducing crime and have cited El Salvador as a model for regional security cooperation. Rubio and Bukele established a relationship long before he became Trump's top diplomat. After Rubio visited El Salvador as a senator in 2023, he celebrated Bukele's leadership and crackdown on criminal gangs, calling on him to make El Salvador's democratic institutions strong to attract more foreign investment.
When the Trump administration began deporting migrants from the United States to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador – many of them alleged Venezuelan gang members – Rubio served as a key point person. He traveled to El Salvador early on in his tenure as secretary of state and personally worked with Bukele and senior Salvadoran officials on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, court filings show. Rubio also engaged directly with Bukele to negotiate a complex prisoner swap - 250 Venezuelans deported from the US to El Salvador in exchange for 10 US nationals held in Venezuela.
Following the legislature's vote, Salvadoran opposition lawmaker, Marcela Villatoro, warned, 'Democracy has died in El Salvador today,' emphasizing concerns about consolidated power and diminished political participation.
Bukele took office in 2019 for a five-year term. In 2021, El Salvador's Supreme Court – composed of judges appointed by Bukele's party-controlled Congress – ruled that immediate reelection was permissible, despite being previously unconstitutional. At the time, the ruling drew sharp criticism from rights groups, opposition leaders and even the US embassy under the Biden administration, marking a stark contrast to the current US position. In August 2024, Bukele told Time Magazine he would not seek a third term in office.
International reactions have been cautious, with the European Union stating it 'takes note' of El Salvador's constitutional reforms and emphasizing future cooperation will be guided by 'democratic governance, transparency, respect for the rule of law and human rights,' according to the Europa Press.
Juanita Goebertus, Americas director for Human Rights Watch, sharply criticized the move, posting: 'Bukele's party is pushing an express constitutional reform to allow indefinite presidential re-election. They are following the same path as Venezuela. It begins with a leader using his popularity to concentrate power and ends in dictatorship.'
The US State Department spokesperson pushed back on that sentiment, stating: 'We reject the comparison of El Salvador's democratically based and constitutionally sound legislative process with illegitimate dictatorial regimes elsewhere in our region.'
The US State Department's position represents a significant shift from its historical stance, where it has typically criticized prolonged presidential terms across Latin America, raising concerns among observers about the long-term implications for democracy in the region.
In El Salvador, many citizens vocally support Bukele's constitutional reforms, viewing them as essential for continued stability and security. Still, some observers question whether the immediate security gains might mask deeper risks to El Salvador's democracy.
Bukele defended the decision vigorously on social media, posting on X: '90% of developed countries allow the indefinite re-election of their head of government … and when a small, poor country like El Salvador tries to do the same, suddenly it's the end of democracy.'
Damian Merlo, an adviser to Bukele, further reinforced this position, telling CNN: 'The constitutional change reflects the will of the Salvadoran people, who overwhelmingly support continuity in the country's development and progress.' Merlo added, 'Permitting reelection does not guarantee extended terms — President Bukele, and/or anyone running for President will still need to campaign, win votes, and earn the people's trust all over again.'
Despite widespread criticism from human rights groups and democracy advocates, Bukele maintains overwhelming popularity amongst Salvadorans, largely due to his aggressive crackdown on street gangs, reducing crime dramatically. CNN previously reported that Bukele's tough security measures have resulted in historically low homicide rates – according to the Salvadoran government – helping to boost his approval ratings consistently above 90%.
Bukele appears unbothered by the criticism. In a June speech marking the first year of his second term, he said he 'didn't care' about accusations of authoritarianism.
'I'd rather be called a dictator than see Salvadorans murdered in the streets,' Bukele said to cheers. 'When I check my phone, I'd rather read 'dictator, dictator, dictator' in the headlines than see 'murder, murder, murder.''
Yet, critics like Amnesty International warn of serious risks to democratic foundations, a divide echoed on social media. Martina Navratilova, a former professional tennis player, posted on X: 'And we are next,' echoing broader concerns about democratic erosion in the US.
Trump has previously made headlines on the topic of term limits. In 2018, Trump notably praised Chinese President Xi Jinping's removal of term restrictions, stating: 'He's now president for life. … I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot someday,' though his comments were largely perceived as rhetorical and drew criticism at the time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Much Is Joe Biden's Social Security Check?
If you've ever wondered if former presidents and senators are eligible for Social Security, the answer is yes. Just as every other American who earns pays into Social Security Insurance through taxes, when they reach retirement age, they are eligible to draw benefits. Discover More: Find Out: And after 36 years as a senator, eight years as vice president and four years as president, Joe Biden is not only eligible, but collecting Social Security benefits. In fact, he's collecting well above the average Social Security recipient. How Much Is Joe Biden's Monthly Social Security Check? Unlike President Donald Trump, Joe Biden has released his annual tax returns since 1998. His 2024 return is not released yet, but his 2023 joint federal tax return, with his wife Dr. Jill Biden, states that he received $42,842 in Social Security income. That works out to approximately $3,570 per month. His wife received $21,412 in Social Security for the year of 2023. That works out to about $1,784 per month. The fact that this amount is almost exactly half of Joe Biden's suggests that she is likely drawing spousal benefits since those are capped at 50%, according to the Social Security Administration. Learn More: How Much Did Joe Biden Make as a Politician? You may be wondering why Joe Biden's Social Security is so high. The simple answer is that as a U.S. senator he drew a pretty good salary by most people's standards. Therefore, he paid and earned a high Social Security rate. Biden was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972, when senators made $42,500 per year, according to the U.S. Senate website. That's more than $333,000 in today's dollars. Over the next few decades, his salary as senator gradually increased to $89,500 in 1987. He then ran for president and lost, but became a senator again from 1990 to 2007, finishing with a salary of $165,200. He then, of course became vice president and president. Biden first began receiving Social Security benefits in 2008 ($6,534) and in full in 2009 ($27,923). What Is the Average Social Security Check Amount? If you're wondering where Biden stands in relation to other Americans drawing Social Security benefits, he's above average. According to the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Monthly Statistical Snapshot, for the month of June 2025, the average benefit for retired workers was $2,005.05. More From GOBankingRates 5 Old Navy Items Retirees Need To Buy Ahead of Fall Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy This article originally appeared on How Much Is Joe Biden's Social Security Check?
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Trump call to oust Intel CEO Tan could sidetrack chipmaker's turnaround
By Arsheeya Bajwa (Reuters) -Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan is already facing an uphill battle in turning around the ailing chipmaker. Now, U.S. President Donald Trump's demand that Tan resign over his ties to Chinese firms will only distract him from that task, two investors and a former senior employee said. Trump said on Thursday that Tan was "highly conflicted" due to his Chinese connections. Reuters reported exclusively in April that Tan had invested in hundreds of Chinese firms, some of which were linked to the Chinese military. Tan may now have to mount an effort to reassure Trump that he remains the right person to revive the storied American chipmaker, pulling his focus away from the cost cuts he's trying to implement. "It is distracting," said Ryuta Makino, analyst at Intel investor Gabelli Funds, which, according to LSEG data, owns more than 200,000 shares in Intel. "I think Trump will make goals for Intel to spend more, and I don't think Intel has the capabilities to spend more, like what Apple and Nvidia are doing." AI chip market leader Nvidia and iPhone-maker Apple have committed hundreds of billions of dollars to expand domestic manufacturing, which, according to Trump, will bring jobs back home. Until recently, Intel had emerged as one of the biggest beneficiaries of the 2022 CHIPS Act, as former CEO Pat Gelsinger laid out plans to build advanced chipmaking factories. Tan, however, has significantly pared back such ambitions, as the company's goal of rivaling Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC's contract manufacturing chops have fallen short. Tan said last month that he would slow construction work on new factories in Ohio and planned to build factories only when he saw demand for Intel's chips, a move that is likely to further strain relations with Trump. The company, its board and Tan were making significant investments aligned with Trump's America First agenda, Intel said in a statement on Thursday, without any mention of Trump's demand. The statement was "bland", said David Wagner, a portfolio manager at Intel shareholder Aptus Capital Advisors, which owns Intel stock through index funds. "Either defend your leader, which will be the beginning of a difficult road ahead, or consider making a change," Wagner said. Having this play out over a few months is not something that Intel can afford, he said. Tan himself released a statement late on Thursday. "The United States has been my home for more than 40 years. I love this country and am profoundly grateful for the opportunities it has given me. I also love this company," he said, adding that the board was "fully supportive of the work we are doing to transform our company." "BUILT ON TRUST" Tan, a chip industry veteran, took the helm at Intel about six months ago, after the board ousted previous boss Pat Gelsinger over years of missteps and burgeoning losses. The company's shares are largely flat this year after losing nearly two-thirds of their value last year. Tan was the CEO of chip-design software maker Cadence Design from 2008 through December 2021. Cadence last month agreed to plead guilty and pay more than $140 million to resolve charges for selling its products to a Chinese military university believed to be involved in simulating nuclear blasts, Reuters reported. The sales to Chinese entities occurred under his leadership. Reuters reported on Wednesday that U.S. Republican Senator Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel's board chair with questions about Tan's ties to Chinese firms and the criminal case involving Cadence. "There has been a lot of misinformation circulating about my past roles," Tan said in his statement on Thursday. "I have always operated within the highest legal and ethical standards. My reputation has been built on trust," he said. It is not illegal for U.S. citizens to hold stakes in Chinese companies unless those companies have been added to the U.S. Treasury's Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List, which explicitly bans such investments. Reuters in April had found no evidence that Tan at the time was invested directly in any company on that list. But Trump's remarks have now forced the limelight on an issue that could erode investor confidence. "If you add in another layer of government scrutiny, and everybody looking into how the company is doing whatever it's doing ... that just makes it harder," said a former senior executive at Intel, who was familiar with the company's strategy under Gelsinger. The source, who declined to be named, was let go as part of Gelsinger's workforce reduction drive last year. Tan's strategy is to "get rid of all of the non-productive parts of the company and really focus on a key few products," the person said. "If (Tan) leaves, it's going to just prolong whatever Intel has to do and needs to do really quickly."
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Putin's phone calls last for hours because of Russian president's ‘monologues,' report says
President Donald Trump's phone calls with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, often last for hours because of the Kremlin's leader's penchant for launching into long, grievance-based monologues, according to a new report. Trump is currently seeking an in-person meeting with Putin in an attempt to thrash out an end to the war in Ukraine, which the president pledged to wrap up within 24 hours of returning to the White House in January. Trump and Putin have held 'multiple calls and passed numerous messages through intermediaries' of late, according to officials cited by The Wall Street Journal. Their conversations are 'typically friendly,' the WSJ's sources said. Still, whereas Trump likes to talk up the prospect of improved U.S.-Russian relations through enhanced economic cooperation, Putin commonly 'lists his grievances and core desires,' such as the international community's refusal to recognize his country's claims over Crimea and the Donbas. His 'lengthy' diatribes and the need for translation can cause the calls to drag on, White House aides said, occasionally testing Trump's patience. 'Putin does this very methodically,' said John Bolton, Trump's estranged former national security adviser from the first term. 'He's very knowledgeable, he knows what he's talking about. When he wants to try and influence somebody, he just talks and talks and talks.' 'Putin's done his homework. He's had years of figuring out who Trump is,' added former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill. The American started this year by rebuking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office for his supposed ingratitude towards his foreign allies for their support, but has lately pivoted to expressing his frustration with Putin. He complained recently: 'I go home, I tell the first lady, 'And I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation.' She said, 'Oh, really? Another city was just hit.'' With the war still rumbling on and Trump said to be privately furious at the failure to make progress, he has begun to threaten other countries that buy oil from the aggressor with higher tariffs, notably hitting out at India and China for, as he sees it, thwarting his efforts to drive Putin to the negotiating table. Fox News' White House Correspondent Peter Doocy reported on Thursday that the Trump administration was 'really optimistic' that the meeting between the two presidents 'might happen next week.' However, his choice of words implied it was still uncertain. Doocy added that none of the advanced logistical work had yet been done by the State Department to prepare for such an encounter, noting that planning of that nature would generally take place 'at least a couple of weeks' before it is required to be put into action. He also said that no location had yet been decided, with Putin expressing a preference for the UAE, but that Trump would probably prefer to host the Russians at his Doral golf resort near Miami, Florida, a suggestion made only partly in jest.
