Politics
Bukele claims he cleaned up El Salvador. But at what cost?
The last time I was in El Salvador, nearly a decade ago, the capital was gripped by the violence of gangs who terrified people — dictating where they could shop, work, go to school or even cross a street.
Homicides were mounting steadily, with little police investigation and no justice. Bodies were being dumped on neighborhood sidewalks and in clandestine graves. “We don’t even exhume many of the [mass] graves,” Dr. Saul Quijada, a forensic physician working at one of the city’s morgues, told me in April 2015.
Returning this summer, San Salvador was transformed. It was safe to walk out at night, to move around the city as normally as one might in a U.S. capital. Officially, at least, only a handful of people were being murdered per capita, fewer than in Los Angeles or Washington, on a daily basis.
But at what cost has this change come about?
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele gives a speech during the inauguration of an industrial data center in Ciudad Arce, El Salvador.
(Salvador Melendez/Associated Press)
Claiming credit for the new atmosphere is the autocratic president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, who assumed a constitutionally suspect second term in office in June. The inauguration was attended by some of Bukele’s biggest admirers, including Donald Trump Jr. and former Fox TV host Tucker Carlson.
Bukele has built a well-financed PR machine that touts his administration’s ability to reduce the homicide rate in El Salvador to a fraction of its past numbers.
In crafting a carefully orchestrated public persona, he has also trampled on human rights and worked to dismantle democracy, critics say.
Outside analysts question the statistics that Bukele frequently cites. But such doubts have not stopped politicians from across the Americas from voicing admiration for Bukele, a 43-year-old ad man with almost no political experience.
Bukele and government officials declined to comment for this story. He has dismissed accusations of corruption, abuse and rights violations as the propaganda of his enemies.
He began to dabble in electoral politics when he ran successfully for mayor of San Salvador in 2015, allied at first with the leftist ideas of the former guerrillas who fought in the country’s civil war, the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, and then abruptly shifting to the right and hitching his wagon to conservative so-called family values — adamantly opposing LGBTQ rights, women’s equality and abortion.
Bukele has said he wants to be the “world’s coolest dictator.”
A couple stands in front of a political mural depicting President Nayib Bukele with a message that reads in Spanish, “I order they sell 3 pupusas for a dollar,” part of a government crackdown to lower food prices, in San Salvador, El Salvador.
(Salvador Melendez/AP)
Assuming crime has been reduced by as much as the government claims, the question is how. For the last two and a half years, Bukele has been ruling under a “state of exception,” essentially an emergency decree that suspends many constitutional and civil rights and allows massive, arbitrary detentions without due process, among other harsh measures.
Dragnets have swept up tens of thousands of people, more than 1% of the national population, shoving them into overcrowded prisons.
Many are gang members, but many are not, human rights activists say, and authorities have been slow to make the distinction. Several thousand of those in prison are children. They are exposed to dire conditions and torture, and several hundred have died, according to human rights organizations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Bukele’s government denies torture is commonplace, and says most of the deaths have been from natural causes.
After winning election to the presidency in 2019, Bukele followed a familiar playbook used by strongmen around the world — stacking the judiciary with loyalists and using a legislative majority to rewrite the rules of governance and consolidate his power. That led to his bid for reelection this year, in violation of the Salvadoran constitution but with an exception authored by his congressional and judicial acolytes. He had virtually no opposition in the race.
It is true that he won both presidential elections by good margins, and Bukele often cites polls that give him an extraordinarily high approval rating. Yet experts say some of the opinion surveys that Bukele has used to demonstrate his popularity do not meet the rigorous standards of international polling, while critics say Bukele has managed to silence much opposition.
Salvadoran soldiers take part in an independence day celebration led by President Nayib Bukele in Ciudad Arce, El Salvador,on Sept. 15.
(Salvador Melendez/Associated Press)
My experience in El Salvador was always that people were generally chatty, politically engaged and willing to share their thoughts. On this trip, however, I found people, including sources I’ve known for decades, more cautious than at any time since the civil war that ended in 1992. Few wanted to discuss politics or criticize Bukele on the phone unless it was an encrypted line.
Under Bukele, El Salvador’s vibrant world of journalism has also suffered.
The website El Faro, generally regarded as one of the best news organizations in Latin America, has been so rigorously hounded by government officials that most of its reporters have had to flee the country.
Its reporting has exposed Bukele’s alleged secret deals with gangsters and drug traffickers, among other corruption scandals.
Bukele has sought to rewrite some aspects of El Salvador’s storied history — which includes being a complex political staging ground that birthed an important revolution, hosting U.S.-backed death squads and yielding Central America’s only native-born Roman Catholic saint. The new El Salvador, in his view, is a paradise for tourism and business and is also the region’s champion of bitcoin and a crypto-currency economy.
He canceled the annual ceremony marking the signing of the peace accords that ended the civil war, dismissing the importance of a historic document that stopped fighting between guerrillas and a right-wing U.S.-backed government that claimed more than 75,000 lives. It also set up a landmark “Truth Commission” that attempted to hold to account those who committed widespread abuses and atrocities.
Initially, the Biden administration was highly critical of Bukele’s tactics, even questioning the validity of his reelection. U.S. officials were appalled at what they saw as egregious backsliding on democracy in a country that still received nearly half a billion dollars in aid. They slapped sanctions on a number of Salvadorans.
Supporters wait for El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele outside the National Theater, where he received the credential from the Supreme Electoral Tribunal certifying his reelection in San Salvador, El Salvador.
(Salvador Melendez/AP)
Within the last year or so, however, Biden administration officials have softened their attitude toward Bukele, crediting his reduction of violence with a parallel reduction in the flow of Salvadoran migrants entering the U.S. illegally. This comes as illegal immigration becomes a volatile electoral issue.
“We have to work with who’s there,” a senior administration official said in acknowledging partnership with a sanctioned government.
Noah Bullock, executive director of Cristosal, a leading human rights organization based in San Salvador, says Bukele has created a nearly totalitarian regime with a patina of democratic trappings that he can point to in his defense. A handful of activists and journalists are allowed to function, he said.
“But any real threat to the political regime that journalism or civil society groups like us could pose is neutralized,” Bullock said. “The entire population is absolutely frightened to do anything.”
Antonio Avelar, 73, who sells watches and repairs eyeglasses in downtown San Salvador, calls the situation “bittersweet. We no longer have the dangers of the gangs, but we also have no freedom. Here, now, you cannot have an opinion, unless and only if it’s opinions favorable” to Bukele.
He worries his shop will soon be displaced by another big change under Bukele: investment from China.
In El Salvador, as in other parts of Latin America, Beijing has made deep inroads with infrastructure and other projects under what the U.S. claims are unfavorable terms that often end up costing the country more than it gained.
Avelar is among hundreds of vendors who fear they will soon be evicted from the city’s historic center, where they have worked for years, to make room for more Chinese development, including a massive library.
“Where I live, we used to have the MS-13 gang on one side, the 18 gang on the other, and they were always fighting each other for territory — it was very violent and agonizing,” said Elizabeth Lopez, 62, who sells food near downtown. “We don’t have that anymore, but we also can’t say anything bad about the reality of the economic situation. If you do, they’ll accuse you of being a gangster and put you in prison.”
A special correspondent in San Salvador contributed to this report.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Pennsylvania1 minute agoPennsylvania hunting licenses to soon go on sale
-
Rhode Island6 minutes agoRhode Island DCYF discloses fatality of 18-year-old
-
South-Carolina13 minutes agoDECISION 2026: What to know about primary elections in South Carolina
-
South Dakota16 minutes agoUSF becomes South Dakota’s first ‘cardiac ready’ campus
-
Tennessee21 minutes ago2026 Tennessee football preview: Grady Dangerfield
-
Texas28 minutes agoFort Worth police launch drone program to speed response times
-
Utah31 minutes agoGot cargo? Utah Highway Patrol, DPS want you to secure your load before you drive
-
Vermont36 minutes agoVermont barn-building ‘legend’ still visits every job site at 83
