logo
Strong support for third term for Bukele, despite constitutional ban

Strong support for third term for Bukele, despite constitutional ban

UPI5 hours ago

Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele enters his third term with broad support according to a new poll. File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo
June 23 (UPI) -- Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele begins his seventh year in office with strong public backing, including majority support for a third consecutive term, despite a constitutional ban on re-election, according to a new poll by the University Institute of Public Opinion at José Simeón Cañas Central American University.
The study found that seven in 10 Salvadorans support Bukele seeking a third consecutive term, even though the Constitution prohibits it. Overall, 70.6% said they "agree" or "strongly agree" with a new re-election bid, while 25.4% were opposed.
Paradoxically, 95% of respondents said it is important to respect the country's Constitution.
The apparent contradiction underscores how many Salvadorans prioritize stability and security under President Nayib Bukele's leadership over institutional concerns.
The poll found that 54.3% of respondents described him as "a president who imposes order with a firm hand," a phrase often tied to his hardline governing style.
Respondents gave Bukele an average rating of 8.15 out of 10, slightly below his score from the previous year. His administration overall received a 7.85, down from 8.28 in 2024.
Public security remains the cornerstone of Bukele's support. About 75.2% of those surveyed said improved safety is the country's greatest current achievement, while 66.6% cited his security policy as the administration's main accomplishment.
Since 2022, the government has enforced a state of emergency aimed at dismantling street gangs -- a measure authorities say has sharply reduced homicides and extortion. The policy remains widely supported, with 66.8% of respondents backing its continuation.
Bukele has built his image on that success. "I'd rather be called a dictator than see Salvadorans killed in the streets," he said in a recent speech, defending his controversial security measures against international criticism.
Despite those gains, the economy remains the administration's most pressing challenge. About 39.2% of Salvadorans identified it as the country's top problem, followed by 15.3% who cited unemployment. Another 10.1% pointed to the high cost of living, and 5% mentioned poverty -- with nearly 70% overall naming economic hardship as the nation's most urgent concern.
Despite large government investments in infrastructure and flagship projects, rising prices for basic goods and limited economic opportunities continue to concern the public. A lack of access to adequate housing also stands out among social issues, with 87 out of every 100 people saying it is difficult or very difficult to buy or rent a home in El Salvador.
These concerns reflect rising inflation in recent years and persistently low wages for many workers. While the desire to emigrate has declined, it remains present among roughly 14% of Salvadorans -- often tied to the search for better living conditions.
Bukele's government has faced criticism over human rights and democratic standards, both domestically and internationally.
In just over two years, more than 78,000 people have been arrested in anti-gang operations, pushing the prison population to record levels. Authorities say about 2.5% of all Salvadoran adults are now incarcerated.
While the government says most of those arrested are gang members or collaborators, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented thousands of cases of arbitrary detention, as well as reports of torture, abuse in prisons, forced disappearances and deaths of inmates in state custody during this period.
Some Salvadorans have also raised concerns over the government's harsh tactics. The UCA poll found that 58% of respondents said they are afraid to express political views critical of the government, fearing reprisals. Forty-eight out of 100 believe someone who criticizes the president could be detained or imprisoned -- a reflection of growing tension around civil liberties.
Independent media outlets have reported surveillance through government spyware, while domestic NGOs face stigmatization and some opposition figures have gone into exile, citing fears of prosecution. The government has rejected those allegations.
Even so, independent polling firms CID Gallup and TResearch show Bukele's approval remains high, with ratings between 80% and 90% throughout 2024 and 2025 -- unusually strong support for a leader at this stage of a presidency.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Supreme Court's ugly new decision about torture, explained
The Supreme Court's ugly new decision about torture, explained

Vox

time23 minutes ago

  • Vox

The Supreme Court's ugly new decision about torture, explained

is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. In a short, one-paragraph order, the Republican justices ruled on Monday evening that President Donald Trump may effectively nullify a federal law and an international treaty that is supposed to protect immigrants from torture. The Court's order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. does not explain the GOP's justices' reasoning, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds to their silent decision in a 19-page dissent joined by her two Democratic colleagues. The Court's order is only temporary, and will permit Trump to send immigrants to countries where they may be tortured while the D.V.D. case is fully litigated. It is possible that one or more of the Court's Republicans could reverse course at a later date. But it is hard to know what arguments might persuade them to do so because the justices in the majority did not explain why they decided this case the way they did. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Federal law requires that the United States shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' This statute implements a treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified over three decades ago. Trump's lawyers, however, claim that they uncovered a loophole that permits the Trump administration to bypass these laws, at least with respect to some immigrants. Typically, before a noncitizen may be removed from the United States, they are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. The immigration judge will inform the person facing deportation which countries they might be sent to, allowing the noncitizen to object to any countries where they fear they may be tortured. If the immigration judge determines that these objections are sufficiently serious to trigger the Convention Against Torture's protections, the judge may still issue an order permitting the immigrant to be deported — but not to the nation or nations the immigrant raised objections about. Related Trump asks the Supreme Court to neutralize the Convention Against Torture The D.V.D. case involves noncitizens who have already been through this process. In their case, an immigration judge determined that they may be deported, but not to specific countries. After the hearing process was complete, however, the Trump administration unexpectedly announced that it would deport the D.V.D. plaintiffs to other nations that were not previously under consideration. That means that no immigration judge has determined whether these immigrants may be sent to those particular nations, and the immigrants have not been given a meaningful opportunity to object to the new countries where they are about to be deported. Using this loophole, the Trump administration seeks to deport them without a new hearing. The Trump administration, moreover, appears to have intentionally selected countries where the noncitizens are likely to be unsafe. It wishes to deport many of these immigrants to South Sudan, for example, a country that was recently in a civil war, and where an uneasy peace appears to be collapsing. Others are slated for removal to Libya despite the fact that, according to Sotomayor's dissent, they 'would have landed in Tripoli in the midst of violence caused by opposition to their arrival.' The Trump administration, in other words, appears to have created a deadly trap for immigrants who fear torture in their home nations. These noncitizens may object to being sent home under the Convention Against Torture, and an immigration judge may even rule in their favor. But the Trump administration may still send them somewhere else even more dangerous.

Was Trump's Iran Attack Illegal? Presidential War Powers, Explained.
Was Trump's Iran Attack Illegal? Presidential War Powers, Explained.

New York Times

time29 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Was Trump's Iran Attack Illegal? Presidential War Powers, Explained.

President Trump's decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran has prompted accusations that he violated the Constitution by carrying out an act of war without congressional authorization. The dispute underscores a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and how the country has been governed in practice. While most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted Congress to decide whether to go to war unless the country is under attack, presidents in the modern era have carried out military strikes without authorization from lawmakers. Courts have shied away from weighing in, and Congress has acquiesced rather than impeaching those presidents. 'Was the Iran strike constitutional?' Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, said on Monday. 'I don't know because the constitutional law of war powers is inscrutable.' Here is a closer look. What has happened? Mr. Trump ordered the American military to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, without seeking congressional authorization or claiming there was evidence of an imminent threat. Threatening further escalation, Mr. Trump has warned Iran that he will respond with more bombings if it strikes back, while musing about pushing for a change in government. But after Iran launched missiles on Monday at a U.S. base in Qatar, Mr. Trump said Iran had given advance warning and there were no injuries. He suggested he wanted to de-escalate. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Jeffries fumes at Trump for blindsiding Congress on Iran strikes
Jeffries fumes at Trump for blindsiding Congress on Iran strikes

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

Jeffries fumes at Trump for blindsiding Congress on Iran strikes

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) on Monday flashed some fury with the Trump administration for sidelining Congress on its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Why it matters: Jeffries notably did not weigh in on a measure to limit Trump's ability to carry out such attacks unilaterally and signaled that evidence the administration presents to Congress will be key. Jeffries said in a letter to fellow Democrats that all House members will be briefed Tuesday afternoon about the situation in the Middle East. "We haven't gotten an initial briefing from the White House," he said at a subsequent press conference. "All we received from the White House is a so-called 'courtesy call' ... I asked for a Gang of Eight briefing, it has yet to occur!" What we're hearing: Behind closed doors, Jeffries is "very" frustrated about Congressional Democrats being bypassed, a senior House Democrat told Axios on the condition of anonymity to provide insights on sensitive internal dynamics. He wasn't the only one: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) received a cursory notification ahead of the strikes similar to the "courtesy call" Jeffries described, Axios' Stephen Neukam reported. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, were also not briefed before the attack, even as their Republican counterparts were. The other side: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Fox News appearance that Jeffries "couldn't be reached" prior to the strikes "but he was briefed after." She added: "The White House was not obligated to call anyone because the president was acting within his legal authority under Article II of the Constitution ... we gave these calls as the courtesy." House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters that Trump "made an evaluation that the danger was imminent enough to take his authority as commander-in-chief and make that decision." Johnson said it is not an "appropriate time" for a vote on the war powers resolution — which is supported by dozens of House Democrats but just one Republican — and that he "doesn't think it is necessary." Zoom out: Jeffries is making the case that the White House ran afoul of the Constitution by not seeking congressional authorization and now needs to prove that Iran posed an "imminent threat" to the U.S. or its military forces. "Not a scintilla of evidence to date has been presented, that I have seen, to justify the notion that there was an imminent threat. ... If the administration has evidence to the contrary, come up to present it," he said. Jeffries said he hopes the briefing on Tuesday will be "comprehensive," and said it "will be probed, it will be tested, it will be aggressively pushed back against, and then we'll see what the outcome is." What to watch: The war powers measure is "privileged," meaning its authors, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), can in, theory, force a vote on it without Johnson's approval. But Johnson is reportedly considering slipping language into an unrelated procedural measure that would effectively shut down a forced vote. Jeffries said he hadn't "taken a look at" the war powers measure, but said Johnson's potential side-stepping maneuver is "outrageous." "House Republican leaders are going to explain that to their own base, which also does not want to see another dangerous, potentially disastrous, Middle Eastern war," he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store