US sides with El Salvador on eliminating presidential term limits, prompting democracy debate
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
Washington Post
7 hours ago
- Washington Post
As U.S. scales back criticism of rights abuses, a look at past reports
The Trump administration intends to significantly reduce its criticism of human rights abuses in Russia, El Salvador and Israel in upcoming State Department reports, The Washington Post reported Wednesday, highlighting how the administration is reshaping the United States' role in international human rights advocacy. The leaked drafts of the long-delayed 2024 reports for those countries — which are notably shorter than those put out by the Biden administration — cut references to LGBTQ+ people and soften descriptions of government abuses, according to The Post's reporting. It is unclear whether the final versions of the reports will mirror the drafts.
Time Magazine
8 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Stanford Daily Sues Trump Administration
Stanford University's student newspaper is suing the Trump Administration over what it says is the government's attempts to target international students for immigration actions over the expression of pro-Palestinian views. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of the Stanford Daily, as well as two unnamed former students. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem are named as defendants. A spokesperson for Stanford University told Reuters that the student newspaper is an independent organization and that the university is not involved in the lawsuit. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney at FIRE, said in a statement. 'Free speech isn't a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.' The lawsuit has requested a preliminary injunction to block the government from attempting to deport students over pro-Palestinian speech while the case is ongoing. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the complaint says. The Stanford Daily was previously on the losing end of a Supreme Court case in 1978 over the search of its offices and seizure of evidence related to a crime—a protest demonstration where police officers were injured—that it had reported on but was not criminally involved in. That case ultimately led to Congress' passage in 1980 of the Privacy Protection Act, which protects journalists in such cases. Here's what to know about the new case and why the newspaper is once again hoping to defend not just its own student writers but a wider class of people whose rights it believes are being infringed. Targeting of foreign students The Trump Administration has used two provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to target foreign-born students and censor pro-Palestinian speech, according to the lawsuit. The first provision, known as the Deportation Provision, gives the Secretary of State the authority to deport a noncitizen if he ''personally determines' their lawful 'beliefs, statements, or associations' 'compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest,'' the lawsuit states. Rubio cited the provision to justify the attempted deportation of Palestinian Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who had acted as a liaison between student protestors and university administrators during pro-Palestinian student demonstrations in 2024, and was arrested by immigration officers on March 8. In an April memo to an immigration judge overseeing Khalil's case, Rubio said that although Khalil's 'past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations … are otherwise lawful,' the Deportation Provision allows Rubio to 'personally determine' whether Khalil should be allowed to remain in the U.S. (Khalil was released from custody in June, and in July his attorneys filed for a preliminary injunction challenging the government's attempts to deport him on a separate immigration charge that alleges he misrepresented himself on his green card application). The second provision, known as the Revocation Provision, allows the Secretary of State to revoke a visa or documentation at his discretion. The Trump Administration has used this provision to revoke the visa of and detain Tufts University Ph.D. student Rumeysa Öztürk, who had co-authored a pro-Palestinian op-ed in the Tufts Daily before her detention and has since been released. 'We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses,' Rubio told reporters in May. 'If we've given you a visa and then you decide to do that, we're going to take it away.' The complaint argues that both provisions are unconstitutional when applied to protected speech: 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message. And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails.' The plaintiffs argue that the government's deportation threats and actions have amounted to violations of First Amendment rights. Since March, noncitizen writers of the Stanford Daily have declined to cover pro-Palestinian protests and asked to remove previous articles on the topic, fearing that such reporting could jeopardize their legal immigration status, according to the lawsuit. 'There's real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,' Greta Reich, the student newspaper's editor-in-chief, said in a statement. 'I've had reporters turn down assignments, request the removal of some of their articles, and even quit the paper because they fear deportation for being associated with speaking on political topics, even in a journalistic capacity. The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.' The Trump Administration has also cracked down on international students more broadly. In April, the government quietly revoked the visas of thousands of students who had allegedly committed minor legal infractions before abruptly reversing the policy. The Administration has also used international students as a bargaining chip to compel university administrations to comply with certain demands, such as by attempting to revoke Harvard University's authority to enroll international students. And the government has heightened its scrutiny of student visa applicants, including vetting applicants' social media profiles for 'a history of political activism.' The Trump Administration's response 'DHS doesn't arrest people based on protected speech, so the plaintiffs' premise is incorrect,' DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to media outlets. 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable.' A bench trial challenging the Trump Administration's alleged 'ideological deportation' policy concluded last month and a final ruling is expected this or next month. That lawsuit was filed by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. During the course of the trial, a government memo unearthed in court revealed that officials had warned Rubio about potential legal scrutiny of deportation attempts because their basis could be considered constitutionally protected speech. 'Anyone who has any position that is against what the American government says they should think, they're immediately 'anti-American,'' David Rozas, an immigration attorney who represented Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian student who was detained for weeks and ultimately chose to self-deport, told TIME in May. 'America was built on discourse,' he added. Trump's immigration agenda, he said, is 'going to stifle American growth and the American dream.' '225 years after the Alien Friends Act expired, the danger of nighttime raids on noncitizens for perceived thoughtcrime is reality once more. Secretary Rubio and the Trump administration's war against noncitizens' freedom of speech is intended to send an unmistakable message: Watch what you say, or you could be next,' the complaint says. 'Message received.'
Miami Herald
14 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Reforms allowing Bukele to rule El Salvador indefinitely spark criticism
El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, has been condemned by opposition politicians and human-rights groups over recent constitutional reforms which could pave the way for him to rule indefinitely. But despite the criticism the reforms have attracted, they appear to have the backing of the Trump administration, which has rejected parallels between Bukele's government and dictatorships in the Latin America region. A U.S. government spokesperson has defended the decision by El Salvador's legislative assembly to scrap presidential terms. El Salvador's legislative assembly, where Bukele's New Ideas party holds a supermajority of 54 out of 60 seats, on Thursday voted to approve a series of constitutional reforms which could pave the way for Bukele to govern indefinitely. The reforms allow indefinite presidential reelection, extend presidential terms to six years and eliminate run-off elections. The move sparked criticism, with the Washington Office on Latin America saying that the legislative assembly 'has ceased to be an autonomous body and acts fully aligned with the interests of the Executive Branch, without allowing dissent or democratic debate.' Amnesty International has also condemned the reforms. 'This practice seeks to concentrate power in the executive branch and increases the risk of human rights violations and the imposition of future reforms without regard for the population and its rights,' said César Marín, Amnesty's deputy regional director for the Americas. However, a U.S. government spokesperson appeared to dismiss such concerns, telling the Spanish news agency EFE: 'The Legislative Assembly of El Salvador was democratically elected to advance the interests and policies of its constituents. The decision to make constitutional changes is theirs. It is their responsibility to decide how their country should be governed.' The spokesperson added: 'We reject the comparison of El Salvador's democratically based and constitutionally sound legislative process with illegitimate dictatorial regimes elsewhere in our region.' The comments, which have been reposted by Bukele on X, have been criticized by human rights groups. '[This] unqualified endorsement of constitutional reforms that allows Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to remain in power indefinitely is an affront to anyone, anywhere, who supports democracy and civil rights,' the Latin America Working Group, an advocacy organization, told the Miami Herald. 'It is irrelevant that the legislative assembly passed the reforms—in six hours and without public debate—it doesn't make the President any less of a dictator similar to other regimes in the region,' the group added, describing the Trump administration's. comments as an 'outrage.' The International Federation for Human Rights also expressed concern about the comments. 'Comparing the Salvadoran process favorably to 'dictatorial regimes' elsewhere in the region distracts from the real danger posed by democratic backsliding in El Salvador itself,' the federation said. 'The international community should not ignore signs of autocratization simply because the process is conducted by elected officials. 'FIDH urges the Salvadoran authorities to uphold the rule of law, ensure genuine separation of powers, and preserve the integrity of democratic institutions. We call on international partners to remain vigilant and consistent in defending democratic norms and human rights throughout the region,' the federation added. Bukele won El Salvador's election in a landslide victory last year, receiving over 80% of votes, despite a constitutional ban on immediate reelection. Bukele was allowed to run after the Supreme Court—controlled by his allies—ruled in 2021 that it was his human right to do so. The support from Washington comes amid a notably strong relationship between Bukele and U.S. President Donald Trump. Earlier this year, the Trump administration paid Bukele's government $6 million to detain hundreds of Venezuelan deportees in the country's megaprison known as CECOT, where extreme overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions, and violence have been documented. When the two leaders met at the White House in April, Trump repeatedly praised Bukele for doing a 'fantastic job' and for his 'effective' crackdown on crime, while Bukele lauded Trump for his 'remarkable' efforts to reduce illegal immigration. Trump himself has hinted at running for a third term, despite its being prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. He told NBC in March that there were 'methods' which would allow him to run for a third term, adding: 'I am not joking.' In an interview with CNBC's Squawkbox on Tuesday, Trump conceded that he will 'probably not' seek re-election, though he added: 'I'd like to run,' claiming: 'I have the best poll numbers I've ever had.'
