El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has weighed in on the ongoing legal battles surrounding former U.S. President Donald Trump, offering a strong and controversial perspective. Bukele compared the actions of certain judges in the United States to the judicial issues his own country faced in 2021. He suggested that judges overstepping their authority and using their power to interfere in political matters was something his nation had already dealt with—and acted against decisively.
Reflecting on El Salvador’s approach to judicial reform, Bukele recalled a dramatic and highly criticized move his government made in 2021. Facing a judiciary he claimed was obstructing his efforts to govern effectively and implement reforms, Bukele’s administration took the extraordinary step of removing several judges from their positions. According to him, this measure was necessary to address a system that was impeding the country’s progress and governance. Following this bold move, his government claimed it was able to “fix the country” by removing what he described as institutional roadblocks.
Bukele’s remarks highlight a broader debate about the role and limits of judicial power in democratic systems. In his view, when judges become political actors rather than impartial arbiters of the law, they risk undermining the will of the people and the effectiveness of elected governments. His comments suggest that strong measures, like those taken in El Salvador, might be the only solution when judicial overreach becomes a persistent issue. This stance has sparked both support and criticism, with some seeing it as a necessary step for reform and others viewing it as an erosion of judicial independence.
As Bukele draws this comparison to the legal challenges Trump is facing, his statements reflect his willingness to take controversial positions on international matters. The parallels he draws between the situations in El Salvador and the United States raise questions about how different countries manage judicial independence and political accountability. Whether his approach offers a viable model or a cautionary tale depends largely on one’s perspective on the balance of power within a democratic system.
While his comments may resonate with those frustrated by perceived judicial overreach, they also reignite discussions about the importance of checks and balances. Bukele’s vision of governance often emphasizes decisive action and the removal of perceived obstacles—but whether this approach strengthens or weakens democracy remains a subject of global debate.