El Salvador's Crypto President Could Stay in Power for Decades After Changes to Constitution
First elected in 2019 on a promise to crack down on gangs, Bukele was supposed to be prohibited from running for re-election in 2024. But the country's Supreme Court of Justice ruled in 2021 that one of the articles in El Salvador's constitution allows a president to run for re-election once. Bukele's New Ideas Party removed magistrates in the Supreme Court who had opposed the president, clearing the path for Bukele to rule the country with an iron fist and make any constitutional changes necessary to remain in power indefinitely.
Bukele was re-elected in 2024 under those extremely dubious circumstances, and his term was scheduled to end on June 1, 2029. But lawmaker Ana Figueroa from the New Ideas Party has suggested moving up Bukele's re-election to June 1, 2027, to put it more in line with congressional elections, according to the Associated Press. With the new changes and Bukele's popularity, it would presumably allow the president to consolidate even more power now that he could be re-elected again and again, both without term limits and for a longer term each time.
The vote to strip term limits for the president and extend the length of each term passed by 57 to 3. And one of the three dissenters, Marcela Villatoro of the Nationalist Republican Alliance, warned that democracy would be weakened with the changes, according to the AP.
'You don't realize what indefinite reelection brings: It brings an accumulation of power and weakens democracy … there's corruption and clientelism because nepotism grows and halts democracy and political participation,' Villatoro is quoted as saying in an English language translation.
Bukele, a fan of Elon Musk and frequent user of X, hasn't tweeted about the changes yet. But guys like Musk and Trump are no doubt excited that their buddy in Central America is going to get even more power. Trump met with Bukele in the White House back in April when the U.S. president was shipping migrants to the U.S. to El Salvador's torture prison. The men sent there, some of whom have been released into Venezuela, have told horror stories about being beaten, given dirty water, and sexually assaulted.
Bukele rode into office and remains popular because he promised to crack down on gangs. But recent reporting from the country's El Faro news outlet claims Bukele's government signed a secret pact in 2019 with gang leaders to dial back violence in the country. Part of the deal, according to the news outlet, was providing financial incentives. Bukele has taken credit for reducing violence by insisting it's all part of his brutally violent crackdown.
Bukele has invested his country's money heavily in crypto, holding nearly $550 million of its foreign exchange reserves in bitcoin, according to Reuters, which amounts to about 15%. And while that may seem like a fine thing to do when bitcoin is soaring, it's extremely risky for any government when the price of crypto is so volatile. Bukele's government made reassurances to the International Monetary Fund that it would scale back its crypto project in exchange for a $1.4 billion bailout from the IMF. But as the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out in May, the country is still buying bitcoin.
As CoinTelegraph reported in June, El Salvador has added at least 240 BTC since Dec. 19, 2024, right after the agreement with the IMF was announced. That's more than $27 million at the current bitcoin price, which is hovering around $114,500, near the record high of about $123,000. It's not clear what the IMF may do since El Salvador violated its agreement, but whatever happens, the government needs to hope the price doesn't plummet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Law scholars say Gov. Abbott's bid to oust Rep. Wu is unprecedented, lacks legal basis
Quorum breaking has a long history in Texas; however, Gov. Greg Abbott's Tuesday petition to the state's Supreme Court is unprecedented and lacks evidence, legal experts tell KXAN. Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Fed up with Beacon Hill, those seeking to change the Legislature turn to 2026 voters for reforms
Kaufman is now leading the charge on two petitions that target stipends lawmakers earn for holding leadership positions. One would eliminate stipends altogether; the other would limit stipends to a certain percentage of a legislative leader's base salary, among other restrictions. The effort emerged after a Such issues 'should have been dealt with in a deliberative process in the Legislature,' said Kaufman, who filed bills to address the stipends only to have legislators ignore them. 'We feel like we have to take democracy back. The Legislature failed us and continues to fail us.' Advertisement Another petition submitted Wednesday would overhaul the election system by allowing open primaries that candidates from all different parties would compete in, an effort to increase competition to incumbents who are often unchallenged. Yet another would extend the state's public records law to the Legislature and governor, which would put Massachusetts in line with most other states. Both petitions are pushed by the Advertisement The petitions, if they make it to the 2026 ballot, build off momentum from the The success of that audit campaign, combined with a changing public perception of Beacon Hill, has fueled new efforts 'to try and pry open information from the Legislature,' said Horowitz, who studies the impact of ballot questions. 'People are recognizing that there is a real opportunity in the ballot question,' he said. Legislator pay has been a recurring topic on ballots nationwide. Peverill Squire, a professor at the University of Missouri who's studied Conversely, among the most common — and unpopular — measures that lawmakers themselves have put before voters are ones to increase their own pay. Squire said there have been nearly 250 such measures over the past 100 years, but the median 'yes' vote sits around 43 percent. Advertisement 'It's a problem that lawmakers are always hoping to tackle,' Squire said during a panel Wednesday at the National Conference of State Legislatures Legislative Summit in Boston. In Massachusetts, lawmakers' pay is automatically adjusted every two years through a complicated process involving two separate mechanisms: one guaranteed by the state Constitution, the other baked into a The constitutionally mandated adjustment is determined by the governor, who every two years must decide whether to raise the annual base salary for legislators. In December, Governor Maura Healey said lawmakers would get an The extra pay lawmakers can earn on top of their salaries also jumped by Some legislative leaders defended the extra pay. House Speaker Ron Mariano said stipends reward those who take on more work and responsibility and helps to 'keep people thinking about this job as a potential career.' He also said legislative leaders are best positioned to determine who receives them. 'Who better to know who shows leadership and puts in effort than the leaders who are trying to move the agenda?' Advertisement The Quincy Democrat did not say whether he'd support subjecting lawmakers to the public records law, arguing it depends on the details of 'what you're opening up' to the public. 'There are some things that are better left to negotiate in private,' he said, 'and I would prefer it that way.' There is a relatively low bar for starting the petition process: submitting just 10 signatures from registered voters and the full text of the law or amendment they wish to have enacted. That signed petition must be filed with Campbell's office, accompanied by certificates of voter registration for each signatory. After that, Campbell's office will review the language and, if deemed acceptable, will certify it and create a summary of the proposed law or amendment that will be printed on the petition forms. Once Campbell announces which petitions are certified for the ballot, typically in early September, campaigns can begin gathering the tens of thousands of signatures necessary to get it on the ballot. Initiative petitions for laws require two separate rounds of signature gathering and submission, and the number of signatures required for each round depends on the number of votes cast for governor at the most recent gubernatorial election. For the 2026 election, campaigns will have to collect a total of at least 87,003 signatures over the two rounds, and no more than one-quarter of the signatures can come from any one county. Other petitions filed Wednesday would allow Committee for Public Counsel Services employees to unionize, reduce the state's personal income tax to 4 percent from 5 percent, overhaul a Advertisement Another initiative that was certified last year and will be on the 2026 ballot would Mariano has been vocal about lawmakers' frustration with the ballot initiative process, saying citizen-written laws can create unintended consequences. Massachusetts lawmakers have also regularly rewritten voter-approved laws, such as slowing the implementation of a reduction in The House just this spring passed a He said he doesn't see the proposals as a rebuke of the Legislature, but rather a demonstration of the 'ease' of getting a measure before voters. 'I see a lot more of these well-financed special interest groups taking advantage of a procedure that I think is way too easy to get a question on the ballot,' he said. 'No one's talking to the voters. They're just getting signatures. It becomes an organizational chore more than anything. And when you see ballot initiatives become law, you see the holes in them.' Samantha J. Gross can be reached at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
"This Isn't About Free Speech": A Right-Wing Movement Is Taking Over Schools, And It's Setting A Terrifying Precedent
Across the United States, more parents are growing concerned as they witness a narrow religious ideology gaining influence over their children's public schools. While some argue that inclusive school curricula are threatening their religious freedom, many others are worried that one belief system is being imposed — dictating not only which books are available in classrooms but who gets to be represented in the school experience. The battle over books, especially those centering LGBTQ+ lives and diverse identities, has become a larger conflict about who controls the definition of American childhood and which values shape that narrative. 'The question emerging in the law right now is: Which parents have rights?' Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor of Rewire News Group, told HuffPost. 'We're seeing the conservative legal movement rally around a narrow vision of parental identity, control, and rights, one that doesn't reflect or include all families.' Education, once a shared public good, is increasingly becoming a battleground. And at the center of it is a Supreme Court case that could have far-reaching consequences: Mahmoud v. Taylor, which challenged the inclusion of LGBTQ+ books in a Maryland school district. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court blocked a Maryland school district's LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum, ruling it posed a 'very real threat' to the religious beliefs of some parents and supporting their right to opt their children out of such instruction. While the ruling doesn't impose a nationwide ban, it opens the door for local challenges that can limit educators' ability to provide diverse and inclusive education. For parents, this means the fight is about whose voices are heard in their communities. Beyond Book Bans, A "Silent Erasure" Is Occurring 'This isn't a book ban case,' explains Kelly Jensen, award-winning author and editor at Book Riot. 'It's a case about education and religious rights. None of the books are being banned or pulled from curricula. The real issue is the chilling effect.' Teachers, already working under immense pressure, may now think twice before including LGBTQ+ books in classrooms, even if those books are age-appropriate and affirming. 'The silent erasure of books, disappearing from shelves without formal challenges, is as insidious as outright bans,' Jensen warns. The ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor didn't change the law outright, but it signaled a cultural shift. One where certain religious beliefs are being elevated above others. The uproar over inclusive books in schools isn't a spontaneous, grassroots movement; it's a carefully coordinated effort. 'These book bans are astroturfed,' Pieklo said. 'They don't bubble up organically in a community because there's overwhelming concern that some inappropriate material has been placed there. These are part of a larger advocacy campaign.' Despite the noise, most families support inclusive curricula and occupy a middle ground, favoring opt-out options for personal or religious objections without imposing blanket bans that restrict access for everyone else. According to Pieklo, these efforts to flood schools with opt-outs are part of a broader conservative legal strategy aimed at undermining public education and controlling what students learn, particularly around race, gender, and history. 'This isn't about free speech or parental choice,' she said. 'It's about using the power of the law to try and direct outcomes.' Religious Freedom For Who? And those outcomes are already changing. The 11th Circuit Court recently upheld a Florida law that prevents teachers from using students' preferred pronouns, mandating that they refer to students only by their sex assigned at birth. The court even ruled that misgendering students is protected speech. The religious justification being used in these cases isn't general, it's specific. 'The ruling essentially says religion is more important than your identity, and not just any religion, but specific types of religious interpretations,' Pieklo explains. In oral arguments for Mahmoud, conservative justices grossly distorted the nature of inclusive books. Justice Neil Gorsuch even described Pride Puppy, a board book about a child attending a Pride parade, as 'a bondage manual for kindergartners.' For many families, the cultural and legal battles over school curricula aren't abstract; they're deeply personal. 'My kids are older now,' Pieklo said, 'but it is very important for me and my family that our children have access to, not just exposure, but access to, books, information, resources, materials that explain not just the world around them but a world they may or may not feel 100% a part of. That helps them understand and navigate shifting understandings of identity.' That sense of wanting children to see and understand the world in its full complexity is shared by other parents across the country. Stephanie, a mother from North Carolina, echoes the importance of broad exposure: 'I'm a Christian and I want my kids to learn about the world as it is, not just through the lens of our faith.' Katie, a public school teacher and parent, said she's horrified by efforts to limit what kids can learn. 'I want my kids to learn as much about the world as they can, and I know I can't teach them everything. I trust that they can handle hearing viewpoints that differ from their own.' That trust in students' ability to think critically is matched by a strong belief in the power of representation. Mindi, a former teacher, reflects on how she would approach things if she were still in the classroom. 'I would have integrated books with secondary characters who identify as LGBTQ — not for 'indoctrination,' but to support my students with other identities. No book bans, ever.' For some, like Denise, a mother in Pennsylvania, the issue goes even deeper — into questions of visibility and belonging. 'I think it's disgusting that LGBTQ+ is being erased from our children's education,' she said. 'These are real people with real and valid ways to love. Taking it out of schools means my kids will always think it's taboo to love who they love.' "We All Lose Something" Underlying all of these perspectives is a shared concern about whose values are shaping what's taught, and whose voices are being silenced. 'When one religious ideology dictates what can be taught, read, or affirmed in public schools, we all lose something,' Pieklo notes. As public schools face funding cuts and increasing pressure, decisions like Mahmoud v. Taylor hand a louder platform to a narrow, often extreme religious agenda that can then shape what every child is allowed to learn, regardless of their own parents' wishes. Though these rulings claim to protect parental rights, some parents feel they frequently silence and disenfranchise those who want their children to see themselves reflected in their education and to understand the rich diversity of the world around them. Megan, a mother of children in public schools, puts it even more bluntly: 'Religion does not belong in schools. I do not enforce or force my beliefs on other people's children. And I'm incredibly not okay with one religion being forced on mine in a 'free' country.' The deeper issue, some parents argue, is the widening gap between well-funded private religious schools and under-resourced public ones. Jensen warns that unless communities push back, this divide will only deepen: 'This ruling might fuel the expansion of voucher programs, pushing public funds toward private religious education,' she said. 'It divides the 'haves' from the 'have-nots.' And it hurts public schools that already struggle for funding.' Megan echoes that concern, pointing to the strain on her children's school, where the teachers' union has had to fight for basics like smaller class sizes and fair pay. 'They deserve help — not funding cuts and more pressure on an already struggling system.' This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
