With Trump as ally, El Salvador's President ramps up crackdown on dissent
Authorities in El Salvador have targeted outspoken lawyers like Anaya, journalists investigating Bukele's alleged deals with gangs and human rights defenders calling for the end of a three-year state of emergency, which has suspended fundamental civil rights. Some say they have been forced to flee the country.
'They're trying to silence anyone who voices an opinion — professionals, ideologues, anyone who is critical — now they're jailed.' Quintanilla said. 'It's a vendetta.'
Advertisement
Bukele's office did not respond to a request for comment.
'I don't care if you call me a dictator'
Observers see a worrisome escalation by the popular president, who enjoys extremely high approval ratings due to his crackdown on the country's gangs. By suspending fundamental rights, Bukele has severely weakened gangs but also locked up 87,000 people for alleged gang ties, often with little evidence or due process. A number of those detained were also critics.
Advertisement
Bukele and his New Ideas party have taken control of all three branches of government, stacking the country's Supreme Court with loyalists. Last year, in a move considered unconstitutional, he ran for reelection, securing a resounding victory.
'I don't care if you call me a dictator,' Bukele said earlier this month in a speech. 'Better that than seeing Salvadorans killed on the streets.'
In recent weeks, those who have long acted as a thorn in Bukele's side say looming threats have reached an inflection point. The crackdown comes as Bukele has garnered global attention for keeping some 200 Venezuelan deportees detained in a mega-prison built for gangs as part of an agreement with the Trump administration.
'Of course I'm scared'
Anaya was detained by authorities on unproven accusations of money laundering. Prosecutors said he would be sent to 'relevant courts' in the coming days. Quintanilla, his lawyer, rejects the allegations, saying his arrest stems from years of vocally questioning Bukele.
Quintanilla, a longtime colleague of Anaya, said he decided to represent his friend in part because many other lawyers in the country were now too afraid to show their faces. On Tuesday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed 'deep concern' over Anaya's arrest.
Anaya, 61, is a respected lawyer and commentator in El Salvador with a doctorate in constitutional law. He has criticized Bukele's crackdown on the gangs and Bukele stacking of El Salvador's high court. Last year, he was among those who unsuccessfully petitioned the country's top electoral authority to reject Bukele's re-election bid, saying it violated the constitution.
Days before his arrest, Anaya railed on television against the detention of human rights lawyer Ruth López, who last week shouted, 'They're not going to silence me, I want a public trial,' as police escorted her shackled to court.
Advertisement
'Of course I'm scared,' Anaya told the broadcast anchor. 'I think that anyone here who dares to speak out, speaks in fear.'
While some of Bukele's most vocal critics, like Anaya and López, have been publicly detained, other human rights defenders have quietly slipped out of the country, hoping to seek asylum elsewhere in the region. They declined to comment or be identified out of fear that they would be targeted even outside El Salvador.
Fear and an ally in Trump
Last month, a protest outside of Bukele's house was violently quashed by police and some of the protesters arrested. He also ordered the arrest of the heads of local bus companies for defying his order to offer free transport while a major highway was blocked.
In late May, El Salvador's Congress passed a 'foreign agents' law, championed by the populist president. It resembles legislation implemented by governments in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus and China to silence and criminalize dissent by exerting pressure on organizations that rely on overseas funding.
Verónica Reyna, a human rights coordinator for the Salvadoran nonprofit Servicio Social Pasionista, said police cars now regularly wait outside her group's offices as a lingering threat.
'It's been little-by-little,' Reyna said. 'Since Trump came to power, we've seen (Bukele) feel like there's no government that's going to strongly criticize him or try to stop him.'
Trump's influence extends beyond his vocal backing of Bukele, with his administration pushing legal boundaries to push his agenda, Reyna, other human rights defenders and journalists said.
The US Embassy in El Salvador, which once regularly denounced the government's actions, has remained silent throughout the arrests and lingering threats. It did not respond to a request for comment. In its final year, the Biden administration, too, dialed back its criticism of the Bukele government as El Salvador's government helped slow migration north in the lead up to the 2024 election.
Advertisement
On Tuesday, Quintanilla visited Anaya in detention for the first time since his arrest while being watched by police officers.
Despite the detention, neither Anaya nor Quintanilla have been officially informed of the charges. Quintanilla worries that authorities will use wide ranging powers granted to Bukele by the 'state of emergency' to keep him imprisoned indefinitely.
Journalists stranded
Óscar Martínez, editor-in-chief of news site El Faro, and four other journalists have left the country and are unable to return safely, as they face the prospect of arrest stemming from their reporting.
At a time when many other reporters have fallen silent out of fear, Martínez's news site has investigated Bukele more rigorously than perhaps any other, exposing hidden corruption and human rights abuses under his crackdown on gangs.
In May, El Faro published a three-part interview with a former gang leader who claimed he negotiated with Bukele's administration. Soon after, Martínez said the organization received news that authorities were preparing an arrest order for a half-dozen of their journalists. This has kept at least five El Faro journalists, including Martínez, stranded outside their country for over a month.
On Saturday, when the reporters tried to return home on a flight, a diplomatic source and a government official informed them that police had been sent to the airport to wait for them and likely arrest them.
The journalists later discovered that their names, along with other civil society leaders, appeared on a list of 'priority objectives' held by airport authorities. Martínez said Anaya's name was also on the list.
Advertisement
Now in a nearby Central American nation, Martínez said he doesn't know when he will be able to board another flight home. And if he does, he doesn't know what will happen when he steps off.
'We fear that, if we return — because some of us surely will try — we'll be imprisoned,' he said. 'I am positive that if El Faro journalists are thrown in prison, we'll be tortured and, possibly, even killed.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
A judge sided with Trump. Behind the scenes, he was lobbying for a nomination.
On Feb. 12, the court published his opinion in Trump's favor in the defamation case against the Pulitzer Board, and on Feb. 27, he interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel's Office. Thereafter, he was informed that he was under consideration for the nomination, and on May 27, he met with Trump, according to Artau's answers provided in the questionnaire. Trump announced he would nominate Artau to be a district judge in South Florida the next day, writing in a post on Truth Social that Artau has 'a GREAT track record of restoring LAW AND ORDER and, most importantly, Common Sense.' In the Senate disclosure, Artau affirmed no one involved in the judicial nomination selection process 'discussed with [him] any currently pending or specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning [his] position on such case, issue, or question.' Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment. Moody's office declined to comment. Artau's opinion in the defamation case was unusual, in part because the ruling concerned a largely procedural matter. Trump had sued the Pulitzer Board for defamation after he requested that it rescind the 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian election interference and ties to Trump's orbit. The three-judge panel in Florida, including Artau, allowed the case to proceed. ''FAKE NEWS.' 'The phony Witch Hunt.' And 'a big hoax.' President Donald J. Trump has publicly used these phrases to describe the now-debunked allegations that he colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election,' Artau wrote in his concurring opinion. '[T]he board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the President colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election.' (The Pulitzer Board has stood by its decision to grant them the award.) Yet Artau's opinion also suggested going further, arguing the Supreme Court precedent known as New York Times Company v. Sullivan wrongly applied the First Amendment in its ruling that required a public official to prove 'actual malice' in a defamation case. While maintaining that the President had satisfied the standard in his case against the Pulitzer Board, Artau called for the Supreme Court to revisit the matter — a controversial position that Trump and his lawyers support. Trump has repeatedly sought to punish news outlets who have written critical coverage of him. Among those efforts, he sued CNN for $475 million in a defamation case that alleged the network sought to undermine him politically. In the complaint, his lawyers argued the standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan should not apply where the media 'seeks to participate in the political arena by offering propaganda.' A judge dismissed the case, but Trump's appeal remains pending. More recently, ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos settled with Trump in a defamation lawsuit after Stephanopoulos mischaracterized the outcome of E. Jean Carroll's civil suit against Trump that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her. Moving the federal judiciary to the right was a marquee accomplishment of Trump's first term, during which he installed hundreds of judges on the bench and three Supreme Court justices. In recent months, his political operation has become increasingly critical of judges deemed hostile to his agenda and called for impeaching those who have ruled against him. Artau is currently a judge on the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida, where he has served since he was appointed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2020. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1988.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Justice Jackson: Supreme Court appears to favor `monied interests' over ordinary citizens
Jackson's dissent in a case about air pollution rules came two weeks after she said the court may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. WASHINGTON − For the second time this month, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has complained that her colleagues are weighing the scales of justice differently depending on who is asking for help. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' she wrote in her disagreement with the majority's June 20 decision that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. 'And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's 'remarkably lenient approach' to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the 'stern stance' it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls 'In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing,' Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' he wrote.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
