Cristosal is recognized as a human rights and anti-corruption organization founded in 2000, initially by Anglican bishops. The organization has evacuated 20 staff members in recent weeks, relocating them to Guatemala and Honduras; now only Ruth Lopez, the anti-corruption and legal director, remains in El Salvador. Lopez’s arrest in May on “secret” charges and the lack of a thorough judicial process highlight how Cristosal and similar organizations have become “vulnerable” in El Salvador.[i]
The decision does not merely imply the relocation of an organization; it also demonstrates that the Bukele administration has a repressive attitude toward the opposition civil society. Globally, the departure of organizations that are critical institutional actors in the pursuit of human rights arbitration and transparency can be interpreted as signs of democratic regression.
Under the Foreign Agents Law adopted in May 2025, individuals and organizations receiving international funding are subject to a 30% additional tax and may be punished for money laundering if they fail to register.[ii] The law severely restricts the financing of civil society organizations and forces many of them to operate on the edge of legality. In practice, this law means that many organizations will become ineffective.
This new obligation has resulted in fear and operational constraints even for organizations that operate on the basis of public interest. The effective withdrawal of leading human rights organizations such as Cristosal confirms the deterrent effect of the law.
In addition to human rights activists who oppose the Bukele regime, media workers and lawyers have also been targeted. Around 60 lawyers and human rights defenders have been forced to leave El Salvador in 2025. Furthermore, at least 40 journalists have been forced to leave the country due to various forms of pressure, surveillance, and fear of arrest.[iii] This process not only silences the voices of opponents but alsleads to the dysfunction of their organizations, thereby damaging social diversity and democratic culture.
Bukele has justified the state of emergency with the rhetoric of “fighting illegal armed groups.” According to official data, murder rates in El Salvador have fallen by 90 percent.[iv] While these figures may indicate the success of the security policy, the fact that this success is overshadowed by human rights violations raises questions about balance. For instance, the arrest of individuals such as Ruth Lopez and Enrique Anaya on vague charges of “illegal enrichment” suggests that legal norms have become politicized. Such practices are even interpreted in the Western press as “authoritarian” steps that violate democratic principles.[v]
Bukele has developed close ties with US President Donald Trump, gaining international legitimacy both by sending 238 Venezuelan prisoners back to their country and by receiving praise from Trump in Washington. Trump has referred to Bukele as a “great president.”[vi] The support he has received from the US may have given Bukele a stronger position domestically, particularly on security policies. However, from the perspective of human rights defenders, this also means backing a broader policy of repression. Washington’s financial and diplomatic support has led to the visibility of extrajudicial practices.
The withdrawal of Cristosal is considered a threat not only to the present but also to the future of democracy in El Salvador, as it represents a systematic erosion of civil society. This development marks a turning point where security-based governance conflicts with democratic values. While the Bukele administration presents falling crime rates as a success, it is gradually pushing fundamental democratic principles such as freedom of expression, judicial independence, and civil participation into the background. This environment will be decisive in determining the direction the country will take in the future whether it will become a rights-based democratic state governed by the rule of law, or a security state where rights are disregarded in the name of stability.
Avoiding this dilemma becoming permanent is directly linked to the support that civil society and voices of dissent in El Salvador receive from the outside world. If international human rights organizations fail to develop effective pressure and solidarity mechanisms against democratic regression trends in Latin America, leaders such as Bukele may consolidate their power even more rapidly. It is particularly important for the European Union, the United Nations, and human rights institutions in the United States to respond strongly and visibly to the threats faced by organizations such as Cristosal.
The Salvadoran people’s expectations regarding security should not be overlooked. Years of violence perpetrated by illegal armed groups in the country have led many citizens to support Bukele’s harsh policies. However, instrumentalizing the demand for security in a way that paves the way for the suspension of fundamental rights could undermine the people’s trust in the state in the long run. Democracy is not merely a process of voting; it is a system that must also include elements such as accountability, participation, and freedom.
The role of Salvadorans in the diaspora may also be critical in the coming period. Journalists, lawyers, academics, and human rights defenders who have been forced to leave their country may become an active channel of opposition, both to ensure their own safety and to draw the attention of the international community. The pressure that the diaspora will create through information production, media collaborations, and legal battles may contribute to the revival of the democratic potential that has been suppressed within the country. In this sense, hope for the future can only be sustained by organized civil resistance fueled from beyond the borders.
In conclusion, recent developments in El Salvador are not limited to the obstruction of the activities of a human rights organization, but also indicate that the country’s democratic institutions have become fragile. Policies implemented out of security concerns pose some serious risks in terms of freedom of expression and the rule of law. Cristosal’s forced departure from the country is a striking example of this process. It is believed that the strengthening of democracy in the coming period will depend on both constructive efforts within society and international cooperation.
[i] Green, Emily. “Exclusive: El Salvador Rights Group Flees Bukele’s Deepening Crackdown”, Reuters, www.reuters.com/world/americas/el-salvador-rights-group-flees-bukeles-deepening-crackdown-2025-07-17/, (Accessed: 20.07.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] “Bukele amordaza El Salvador”, El País, https://elpais.com/opinion/2025-05-19/bukele-amordaza-el-salvador.html, (Accessed: 20.07.2025).
[vi] “El Salvador President Says ‘Of Course’ He Won’t Release Maryland Man Back to the US”, Le Monde, 14 Apr. 2025, www.lemonde.fr/en/immigration/article/2025/04/14/el-salvador-president-bukele-says-of-course-he-won-t-be-releasing-maryland-man-back-to-the-us_6740221_144.html, (Accessed: 20.07.2025).
