Framing the Enemy: El Salvador's Nayib Bukele's Use of Social Media to Protect Domestic Legitimacy
- Miguel Daiki De Urquia
- 8 hours ago
- 6 min read
On April 20, 2026, Nayib Bukele posted a seven-paragraph response on his X account to a US congressional hearing held on April 16 that accused him and his administration of human rights violations. A day later, he posted a follow-up, calling the members of the congressional hearing “defenders of criminals.” Both posts share the same 2-minute, 27-second clip from the hearing. The clip includes Spanish subtitles and primarily shows Republican Congressman Chris Smith speaking with human rights representatives about the topic. These posts were likely a preemptive move ahead of the sentencing of 486 gang members in a single hearing on April 21, which went on to attract significant worldwide criticism.
These posts reveal that Bukele is acutely aware of the criticism surrounding his leadership and recognizes the need to defend his authority to maintain public support at home. Facing backlash both domestically and internationally over the prolonged state of exception and the aggressive measures used to combat crime, he has been under constant pressure to justify these policies, even as the security situation continues to improve. This analysis explores how Bukele leverages social media to shore up his legitimacy amid mounting criticism of his crackdown on criminal gangs.
Bukele’s use of X has historically been marked by short, declarative, and emotionally charged statements, often accompanied by his own speeches, promotional graphics, or videos. The X post on April 20, therefore, represents a notable departure from his usual communication style on the platform. It seems escalatory. It is unusually long and accompanied by a selectively curated clip from a U.S. congressional hearing, rather than any self-produced media. Its continued placement as a pinned post further underscores its strategic importance, emphasizing how Bukele may want it to be at the forefront of his public image at the moment. In digital communication, stark deviations from routine styles may signal a perceived reputational threat or an attempt to reframe a dominant media narrative. As a result, these X posts suggest a deliberate effort by the Salvadoran leader to intervene in a rare, lengthy manner, possibly anticipating backlash from the historic sentencing on April 21.
Bukele opens with the statement: “A few weeks ago, a group of ‘experts’ funded by Open Society (Soros)…” This sentence employs several delegitimization strategies identified in critical discourse analysis, particularly Van Dijk’s ideological square. The quotation marks around “experts” signal irony, mockery, and a challenge to the group's authority. This idea is reinforced by the reference to Open Society and George Soros, whose name is inserted parenthetically. The reference to Soros is deliberately intended to invoke broader concerns related to conspiracy theories surrounding the liberal philanthropist, who has been at the forefront of right-wing attacks and at the center of globalist and “deep state” conspiracies. Through this mention, Bukele frames criticism as potentially externally orchestrated rather than substantiated, while continuing to delegitimize the group of representatives.
Bukele concludes the opening paragraph by claiming that critics sought “the release of 100% of the gang members arrested during the state of exception.” This statement is a clear example of hyperbole and a straw man fallacy, in which an exaggerated and inaccurate representation of an opponent's argument is used to make it easier to criticize and dismiss. Here, we also see the use of the ideological square, in which the outgroup's negative attributes are highly distorted and simplified to damage its reputation. The use of “100%” is also important, as it effectively turns a question about democratic due process and human rights into a morally charged binary that asks whether criminals should be punished, thereby deeply simplifying and dodging the originally intended question.
Following this, Bukele employs common populist tactics to unify the people against a common adversary symbolically. He claims that videos from the initial hearing “generated strong rejection” among the Salvadoran people, suggesting that public opinion was unified and decisively opposed to “journalists” and “experts.” By invoking an assumed collective reaction, Bukele positions his stance as synonymous with the will of the people and convinces audiences who have not yet formed an opinion through social pressure, conformity, and in-group and out-group distinctions. By positioning himself as synonymous with the people, Bukele also reinforces legitimacy while making opposition appear externally imposed and internally rejected.
The idea of externally imposed opposition recurs throughout Bukele’s X post, reinforcing the polarized antagonism between the Salvadoran people and those who wish to harm them. Bukele first does so by consistently using the third person, repeatedly referring to the opposition and critics as “they,” “them,” and “their.” In this way, he separates the Salvadoran people from the opposition through an othering tactic, casting the latter as an out-group that is less legitimate. Bukele also uses the imperative repeatedly in his X post, urging the audience to “watch the video and judge for yourselves,” “see how,” and "don't let them fool you,” which makes him sound like the morally superior judge of what is correct and what is not. The phrase "don't let them fool you” is particularly important because it not only shows how Bukele divides both groups in a binary manner but also makes it seem as though the opposition is trying to take advantage of Salvadorans.
This also makes the attached video important, as Bukele repeatedly urges the audience to watch it for themselves while selecting a short 2-minute clip that best suits his narrative. Rather than providing a full account of the congressional hearing, Bukele amplifies a brief segment and frames it as a summary of the proceedings. By doing so, Bukele offers a simplified, heavily biased clip of the hearing that favors his defense. In the clip, Republican Congressman Chris Smith slams the human rights panel and stands up for Nayib Bukele and his leadership. The clip also features moments that make the human rights representatives look especially bad, including one in which they are unable to call MS-13 a terrorist organization and state that those who perpetrate violence still have the protection of human rights. Bukele includes this moment to create a moral contradiction in the human rights groups, showing that they are protecting criminals who have violated human rights for the sake of human rights. Bukele addresses both facts in his X post, noting that “When they were directly asked if they agreed that MS-13 is a terrorist organization, they couldn’t respond, and then they claimed that, regardless of the crimes committed, they were there to defend the rights of those people.” This comes back to a question Bukele often faces, which he has made clear, namely, that criminals in El Salvador do not get to enjoy full human rights because they themselves were violating them daily. Through this logic, Bukele’s post and the addition of the short clip together make the human rights panel and its representatives appear hypocritical and morally wrong.
Bukele’s final paragraph states, “Let there be no doubt: what these supposed “journalists,” “human rights defense” organizations, and national and foreign politicians who support them are seeking is the release of these criminals, so they can return to subjecting the Salvadoran people to their reign of terror and turn us back into the most dangerous country in the world.” Beginning the closing paragraph with “let there be no doubt” suggests an effort to close debate and eliminate discussion surrounding the topic, while using absolutist language to remove any nuance that may exist within the discussion. Apart from the continued use of quotation marks already explored, Bukele once again references an external source that seeks to attack El Salvador. The final sentence, referring to the subjection of “Salvadoran people to [the] reign of terror [to turn them back into] the most dangerous country in the world,” makes it seem as though there is a greater agenda behind the opposition, which seeks the country’s downfall and suffering. This overall idea is also reinforced by the aforementioned reference to Soros and conspiracies surrounding the globalist agenda. This points to a narrative of foreign interference, which may serve to nationalize the fight and boost domestic support against a “common enemy.”
Bukele's April 2026 X posts reveal a leader acutely attuned to the threat that sustained international criticism poses to his domestic legitimacy. By deploying a carefully curated set of delegitimization strategies (e.g., invoking conspiratorial associations with George Soros, constructing a populist in-group/out-group binary, and selectively framing a U.S. congressional hearing with a 2-minute clip), Bukele successfully redirected the conversation from questions of due process and human rights to a morally charged narrative of national survival against foreign interference. This pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that Bukele sustains legitimacy not by directly refuting criticism but by discrediting its sources and reframing the terms of debate. As the state of exception extends and mass sentencing hearings draw increased global scrutiny, this report anticipates that Bukele will continue to rely on social media as a first-response tool for narrative management. The durability of this strategy, however, remains contingent on continued domestic approval and on the willingness of key international partners, including the US, to overlook its authoritarian undertones.
EXHIBITS
