Read the Full Transcript of President Nayib Bukele’s Interview With TIME

Read our full cover story on Nayib Bukele here. You can also read the transcript of the interview in Spanish here.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele sat down for an interview with TIME in his office at the Casa Presidencial in San Salvador on June 25. Bukele, who won re-election in February with 84% of the vote, had just begun his second term. He discussed his government’s crackdown on the country’s notorious gangs and the emergency powers that have allowed him to suspend some civil liberties in order to incarcerate more than 81,000 suspected gang members and their associates. He also talked about how plunging homicide rates have transformed El Salvador, his efforts to rebrand the nation by adopting Bitcoin as legal tender, and why the “Bukele Model” is being adopted across the region.

Below is a transcript, lightly edited for clarity, of Bukele’s interview with TIME Senior Correspondent Vera Bergengruen.

TIME: I wanted to start with your inauguration, which was quite a spectacle. Were you surprised by the level of international attention it received and the high-level officials, especially the large delegation from the United States, who attended?

Bukele: The inauguration is an event that is always held; it is normal. It’s expected that there will be a lot of local attention from the people of the country. Obviously, there will be some international attention, no matter how small. Any inauguration in Latin America gets some press. Some people who had their own followers started to confirm. Everyone said, "Such and such will come."

Some prominent people in the United States also started to come, which I think helped make the government's delegation more robust. The government sent a very robust delegation—not just the Secretary of Homeland Security but also representatives from the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and various other agencies. Even a bipartisan congressional and Senate delegation came.

In the end, it became more and more robust. I think one thing led to another. In the end, it attracted even more international attention. In addition, our administration, at least on this side of the world, is quite well known, especially in Latin America, much less in other latitudes or the eastern hemisphere or Europe. It is much less known there than here. In this area, it has become better known and, therefore, already received some attention. The build-up, I think, resulted in more attention than we expected—but it was positive attention.

It seems to me that you were seeking to show them a different aspect of El Salvador. When one walks into the airport, it now says, "Welcome to the land of surf, volcanoes, and coffee." What was the feedback from the people who traveled here—especially from members of Congress and the people who came from the U.S., like Donald [Trump] Jr.,Tucker Carlson—who wouldn't have visited if it weren't for you and what is happening in El Salvador?

Bukele: Yes. Some are not just thinking about but actively looking to buy properties in El Salvador to get away and rest. The truth is, why not? El Salvador is a very nice, small country, the smallest in all of the Americas. It is very nice. It has the best surf beaches in the world, at least according to surfers it is in the top five. Some might say, "No, the ones in this or that country are better," but they’re among the top in the world.

We have some of the best coffee in the world. While its supremacy over the coffee from other countries may be debatable, it is undeniably excellent coffee. We have one of the greatest, if not the highest, densities of volcanoes in the world, with some beautiful ones to see, and so on. The biggest problem in El Salvador, which was never a tourist destination—never even making it into the top 100—was primarily insecurity.

As it is now the safest country on the continent, there are no longer any obstacles to visiting it. It's a completely free and open country, easy to visit—most countries don't require a visa to enter. It's 100% safe, with many natural attractions packed into a relatively small space. It makes sense to many people, especially in the United States; South Florida is only a two-hour flight away. There are several direct flights available every day. Understandably, people would want to spend a few days here each year.

Since this is a profile, I'm interested in understanding your political evolution, especially given your family's connections to the Salvadoran left. In 2012, you described yourself as being part of the “radical left.” From the outside, it seems you align more with the right, and most of your allies in the United States are right-wing. How would you define your political views?

Bukele: Yes, I definitely don't consider myself to be left-wing or right-wing. That division originated after the French Revolution. It's essentially as basic or absurd as saying, "Those who supported the most revolutionary ideals sat on the left side of the hemicycle, while those who favored the most monarchical ideals sat on the right. Thus, they were labeled the left and the right." Since then, all countries have been influenced by the seat distribution established in France.

Which, to me, made some sense at the time, of course. One learns and understands things better, but a division originating from the French Revolution no longer makes sense to me. It's not even classical enough to say it comes from human civilization. Nor is it modern enough to say it's still in effect. It's an archaic definition that isn't even old enough to be considered classical. It makes no sense to define things in terms of left and right.

Additionally, I have many friends on the right, and we may currently have more support from right-leaning sectors than from the left. However, I don't consider myself aligned with either side. Our government policies are not designed to lean right or left. I think this is largely due to some coincidences. From my perspective, as someone who was once on the left, it seems that if I were to analyze things from an external viewpoint, the left has lost its way across the world. I’m no longer interested in those definitions, but that’s my observation. They don't even have clear models or prominent figures.

If I were part of that camp, I'd say, "We have a serious identity crisis and need to act quickly before we lose all elected offices," because people no longer see any clear direction on the left. Despite its anachronisms, the right is at least setting a course. I'm not the only one saying this; scholars on the left and many others also note it.

At your inauguration, you said that it was the first time that a single party would dominate a fully democratic system, with all opposition effectively “pulverized.” Do you think a country can be truly democratic with a single party in power and no significant, or only a greatly diminished, opposition?

Bukele: Yes, of course. What happens is that an imposed single party is incompatible with democracy. What can I choose if there is only one party? Others may defend it and have their own perspectives. I believe that a single party imposed by legislation is incompatible with democracy. However, when there is a hegemonic party, as in our case—perhaps you were referring to the victory speech on election day—the correct term would be a very hegemonic party.

We hold 90% of the seats in Congress, and with our allies, we have 95%. The opposition has only 5%, with just three representatives out of 60. It is an extremely hegemonic party, almost unique, but the difference is that it has been 100% democratic. Not only because we have held elections—after all, I have heard people say, “The fact that there are elections does not guarantee that it is democracy."

Yes, of course, but in our case, it is different. We have a Supreme Electoral Tribunal controlled by the opposition, the same tribunal that controlled the previous election in 2021. At that time, the opposition controlled the courts, the assembly, the Prosecutor's Office, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and all State institutions, while we only had control of the executive branch. That is well-documented. We had intense conflicts and disagreements, of course, because we were on opposing sides.

The opposition entirely controlled the country, except for the presidency and the executive branch. With that tribunal in place, we won the 2021 elections decisively, securing 70% of the votes, if I'm not mistaken. This allowed us to implement the necessary reforms, including the emergency regime, the war against gangs, and other measures.

In the 2024 election, the same electoral tribunal was maintained, the same political parties, the party that was in power the 10 years before our government. The party that was in power the 20 years before that also participated. The party that was in power the five years before that also participated, and the party that was in power the 20 years before participated as well.

These are not parties…None are friendly; that is, they are very vociferous and critical, expressing themselves very strongly against the government with total freedom. They ran a campaign of harsh criticism, with strong attacks, which is completely valid in a democracy. I don't see this as negative; rather, it's a positive indication that we had a completely free and transparent election.

Even the international observers we had—more than 3,000 on the ground, if I recall correctly—and organizations like the European Union and the OAS, which are among the most involved in monitoring elections, all stated that the election results were valid. They may have had some reservations, but they acknowledged the outcome. They said, "Finally, after all, we can guarantee that the election outcome reflects the feelings and the decisions of the Salvadoran people." I didn't say that; the European Union said it.

Yes, I think no one is denying that.

Bukele: Correct. A few months earlier, when we had the inauguration of a Central American and Caribbean Sports Games here in El Salvador, quite a few media outlets attended. I told them, "Don't just take my word for it, because of course I'll speak positively about us and the government. But you're already here—you've got your cameras, paid for your plane tickets, booked your hotel rooms, and set up your internet. You've got everything: the people, the photographers, and the video cameras. Go to the streets. Ask people and don't go where--"

"Yes, go there, but don't limit yourselves to the most public or prominent places where the government might have some influence. No. Go anywhere. It is so safe that you can walk into any dark alley without any problem. Go to a community—head into a rural area without many people. You might hear a dog barking in the distance, but that doesn't matter. Go anywhere, ask the people. It will be rare if you find a negative opinion among the population."

Someone still came and told me later, "Oh, sure, that's because the dictatorship is so strong that people are afraid to speak out against it." I said, "It's not like that, but putting myself in your shoes, I ⁠can see why you would think that." We got 85% of the votes in the election here in El Salvador; that is, 15% didn't vote for us.

The turnout for voting abroad was exceptionally high, both in terms of percentage and total numbers, compared to any other country in the world. We received 98.7% of the votes from Salvadorans living abroad—nearly 99%. Out of 700,000 Salvadorans who voted, a significant number given our electoral roll and population, we secured 98.7% of the votes.

I told them, "If it’s the dictatorship that makes people support us, how did we manage to bring it to New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Boston, Houston, Miami, and all the places where we had-- Madrid, Australia, Milan? How did we bring the dictatorship to every polling center in the world?"

We even encountered a problem on Election Day because the polls were closed at 6:00 PM. According to Salvadoran Electoral Law, the polls cannot be closed until the last person in line has voted. However, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal closed the polls abroad at that time, leaving many people still outside.

They were waiting in the cold, in the snow. People started complaining. There are videos on social media of people complaining, "Let us in." Some media outlets in the United States interviewed them. Basically, we know it was 98% or more, but there, it looked like 100% of the people supported us. How do we bring the dictatorship to these great cities in the world and all countries? To Europe, Australia, Asia, Latin America, the United States, and Canada? It would be impossible for the dictatorship to influence people there. I think there's been a strong narrative against us, which is fine. Still, when people come here and see the reality, it contrasts sharply with what's been said abroad—especially in Europe and the United States, though not as much in Latin America.

I think no one really denies the popular support—it's quite evident. I ask because it's quite unusual to have a democracy with only one dominant party, right?

Bukele: Sorry, I went on a tangent. I didn't exactly answer your question. What I meant by all that—and sorry for the tangent—is that the population decides this. I don't think a single president in the world wouldn't try to achieve as much as possible in their meetings.

I am sure that, whether in the United States, France, or anywhere else, the president participates in elections, midterm elections, if not him then his representatives, to aim to secure as much support as possible. If he could get 99% support from Congress, he would get it. I am sure that President Biden in the United States during the midterms did not say, "Let's aim for only a maximum of 55% to maintain checks and balances." I'm sure the Democrats tried to get everything they were able to.

Regardless of who wins the election in November in the United States, be it the Democrats or the Republicans, the incumbent president will use every resource available—finances, sponsors, ground support—to try and secure as many seats as possible, ideally 100% of the seats in both Congress and the Senate.

Now, they may not succeed, but their failure can't be our roadmap. I can't say that, because presidents worldwide often face failure and poor evaluations, and because midterms frequently yield unsatisfactory results, we're not going to artificially assign half of Congress to the opposition just say that we are a democracy.

You're saying that it’s not your fault that you're so popular.

Bukele: Exactly.

I saw an interview from 2019 where you repeatedly said, "We have 59 months left, we only have 58 months left to do this job.” Obviously, now you’ll have many more months. When did you decide that running for a second term would be possible, and how did you come to that decision?

Bukele: What happened is that what I said in 2019, I actually started saying back in 2014. But back then, I wasn't referring to myself; I was talking about another president. In the Salvadoran mindset, and according to what we've always understood from the Salvadoran Constitution, immediate re-election was not allowed. Re-election was allowed but with a period in between. That was the interpretation of Article 152 of the Constitution; that's how it was always understood. The president can serve one term and then sit out the next term. However, he can run again after that break.

I believe you yourself explained this ban in 2013.

Bukele: I even explained it in an interview. If I recall correctly, in 2014, Elías Antonio Saca, who served as president from 2004 to 2009, ran again. He used the rule allowing a former president to run again after sitting out for at least one term.

He ran for the presidency again in 2014. The institutions allowed him to run for office and register. He registered his movement, united three political parties, and formed a coalition to support him. Then, a citizen lawyer filed a lawsuit against his candidacy, arguing that Article 152 of the Constitution didn't just prohibit immediate re-election but also re-election after sitting out a term.

Article 152 literally says, "You cannot be a candidate for the presidency of the Republic if you have been president in the immediately preceding period." The argument presented by the citizens and that lawyer before the Supreme Court of Justice was made when I was the mayor of a small municipality; I wasn’t even the mayor of San Salvador yet, and I had zero influence.

The argument they presented to the Court was that the article had been misinterpreted. It states, "Whoever has been president in the immediately preceding period may not be a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic." They argued that "may not be a candidate" refers to the current period and applies to the candidate who has just completed a term.

The Constitution states, "Whoever was president in the immediately preceding period may not be a candidate." In other words, "He who was president in the immediately preceding period cannot be a candidate," as the article says verbatim. It's a bit shocking, but they were right. The wording of the article literally forbids the president from the immediately preceding period from running as a candidate. It states that explicitly.

I’m not the one saying it’s right, but the Supreme Court of Justice said it was right. Not the justices my party appointed but all the previous ones appointed before my party was in power. They let the former president run, and the president lost the elections. He got 11% of the votes; it didn't go so badly, but he lost. He came in third.

After losing, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided that it was correct. That was a 2014 resolution. I was the mayor of Nuevo Cuscatlán, not even the mayor of San Salvador. It's a small town on the outskirts of San Salvador, where I live.

The Constitutional Chamber of the Salvadoran Constitutional Court stated, "It is true. Article 152 does not prohibit immediate re-election but prohibits re-election with a period in between." However, the Constitutional Chamber also noted at that time, "There is another article that mentions that alternability in the exercise of the presidency is fundamental to the system of government in El Salvador."

They said, "Therefore, we will prohibit re-election for 10 years. We will prohibit immediate re-election based on the article about alternability, and we will also prohibit re-election after skipping a term, like what Tony Saca did. From now on, this will be prohibited by Article 152." The Constitutional Chamber changed the interpretation of Article 152.

When was that?

Bukele: 2014, 10 years ago.

So when did you decide—

Bukele: I was the mayor of Nuevo Cuscatlán at the time. After that, I ran for mayor of San Salvador and won the office in 2015. I served my full term as a mayor. In 2018, I was expelled from my party and ran for president. We won in 2019, long before anything else.

When I was president, we were in the campaign for mayors and representatives. During this campaign, a candidate for representative from an allied party said in a television interview, '"I'm going to work as a representative so that we can re-elect the president." A lawyer sued the candidate, who, by the way, did not win the election. She was a young woman and did not win the election. He sued the candidate, asking that her rights as a citizen be revoked. It was that serious, just for having proposed something like this.

The Constitutional Chamber received the claim and resolved that she had not violated anything in the Constitution because, according to the previous chamber's interpretation, Article 152 did not prohibit immediate re-election. Although the previous chamber had prohibited immediate re-election based on the article about alternation, the term "alternability" is not the same as "alternation."

Alternability means the ability to alternate, allowing the population the possibility to effect a change, not the obligation to do so. That is why no one says that the United States lacks alternability. It has alternability now. You have the option to alternate or keep the same president.

The Court ruled that it is possible to run for president for an immediate term. However, it is not possible to do so afterward, according to the interpretation of Article 152. At that time, with a resolution, the Court was enabling presidential re-election with the resolution in favor of the former candidate. Re-election was enabled, and obviously we saw that as an opportunity.

We didn't make the decision at that time because we had to weigh many factors, in my case, family matters. However, a little less than a year later, we decided to take advantage of the opportunity for re-election that had opened to us, which didn't exist before but was now possible.

The most important thing is that, in the end, the candidate would be presented to the population, and they would decide whether they liked them or not. They had a full range of possible candidates, including those within my own party.

Obviously, it was very difficult for them to beat me within my party. But even in the general election, with all the parties involved—the former bipartisanship, the right, the left, the ex-guerrillas, the former government—together, they didn’t even get 15% of the votes in an election that was audited, observed, and recognized by every country in the world.

There is something interesting there, and that is that few governments, very few, are recognized by 100% of the world's countries. There are governments, regardless of their power—though this is not the case with the United States, of course—that not all countries may recognize. Many countries have varying levels of recognition and issues related to their international standing.

In the case of El Salvador, no single country or government in the whole world says, "No, El Salvador's election was illegitimate." That is, there may be questions at the level of an analyst, at the level of an NGO, but there is not a single government, a single multilateral organization, the UN, the OAS, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank—not a single organization or government in the world does not recognize our elections.

I don't mean to rush you, but I have many questions. So if I interrupt you, it's not because—

Bukele: No. Interrupt whatever you want.

—I'm being disrespectful. You have also stated that El Salvador is the safest country in Latin America. Is this new security sustainable, and can it exist without a state of exception?

Bukele: It's two questions, Yes, it is sustainable, and yes, it can exist without a state of exception. Everything created by humans requires maintenance, as I've mentioned before. Humans build nothing—be it infrastructure, a cohesive society, or security—that doesn't require maintenance. Everything that is built or made by humans requires maintenance. The moment maintenance is lost, it fails.

Is this sustainable? Yes. Does it require maintenance? Yes. Can that maintenance be done without the state of exception? Yes. Why don't we lift it right now? We’re not yet ready to lift it, but we know it’s a state of exception, and therefore we hope to lift it as soon as the situation allows us to maintain the conditions without it.

What kind of metrics or other conditions would need to exist for you to end the state of exception?

Bukele: The gangs were a structure of 70,000 gang members; that was the formal gang structure. Obviously, they had half a million collaborators. I’m not saying this; experts and international organizations from before my presidency say this. There’s no influence from me on that number.

In El Salvador, while there’s no exact census of gang members, there were around 70,000 gang members and approximately half a million collaborators. We do not expect to arrest half a million collaborators, as we understand that most of them cooperated because they lived in that world.

However, some collaborators did commit serious crimes that cannot be justified. I’m not referring to simply warning that the police were around— which, unfortunately, was part of Salvadoran reality—but rather to crimes like assisting in a murder. Even if they were not part of the core gang structure, such actions must be punished with imprisonment.

We removed 85% of the gang members from the streets, targeting the entire pyramid structure of the gangs—from the leaders to the cliques and lower ranks. That whole structure fell apart. The vast majority of gang members are in prison. Some fled the country and are in other countries waiting to return. Another group remains hidden. How do we know this? Because we catch a lot of gang members every day.

We estimate that there are still between 8,000 and 9,000 gang members on the streets. Catching 100% of gang members may be impossible since we don’t have a complete census. They might have fled, be in other countries, or still be here, even though they are not currently active. There are still enough who could regroup if we reduce the pressure.

If we remove more gang members from the streets, there won’t be enough left to reorganize. With only 3,000 or 4,000 members, they wouldn’t have enough to form four gangs. It is difficult. It's also not like we're going to remove the police. In the near future, we hope to lift the state of exception, return to normal constitutional processes, and maintain the peace we’ve achieved through regular judicial and law enforcement activities.

As you know, groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported abuses such as deaths in custody, torture, arbitrary detentions, and violations of due process, as well as thousands of innocent people being imprisoned without due judicial process. Your government has stated that some of this is inevitable. Do you, as president, consider it the cost of security?

Bukele: I believe there are many false narratives in what is reported abroad. I would divide it into two things. One, there are many false narratives. For instance, claims of torture in prisons lack any evidence. As for deaths in our prisons, our death rates are quite low.

Sometimes the figures are not false but the narrative surrounding them. Sometimes, some things are half-truths. It sounds true; they have data to corroborate it, but it hasn't been presented in the context of the actual situation. For example, international organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International claim there have been over 300 deaths in prisons—308, to be precise—since the emergency regime began.

The state of exception started in March 2022, so it has been two years and three months. This means we're talking about approximately 140 deaths per year. One hundred forty deaths per year in a prison population of over 100,000 prisoners is a very low rate by Latin American standards and even lower compared to the United States. In the United States, where prisons have amenities like gyms, nutritionists, and Netflix, the mortality rate is higher than in El Salvador. When people hear "300 deaths in prisons," it sounds like a lot because each number represents a human life, no matter what they were guilty of.

However, it's important to understand that deaths can occur both inside and outside of prison. We don’t aim to harm anyone, but death is a reality for people both inside and outside of prisons.

There are diseases; some die of old age, and some die of a disease or something. Moreover, since the death rate in El Salvador's prisons is lower than in many Latin American countries and even lower than that of the United States, it is significant to note that we are not systematically killing people in prison. What would be our gain from killing someone? What for? To see a rise in accusations? We wouldn't have anything to gain from that.

I think these concerns center on conditions in the prisons, and the innocent people who may end up incarcerated.

Bukele: I understand that prison conditions are much better in the developed world. In fact, people in prisons there often live better than those in average homes in the developing world. However, it is true that conditions in Salvadoran prisons are better than in many North American countries.

I won't name specific countries to avoid international conflicts. Still, look at prisons in many Latin American nations. You'll find that drug traffickers and criminal organizations control the majority. These prisons are often run by the underworld, with drug runners giving orders, organizing killings outside, and maintaining a hierarchical structure. Inmates can enter and leave as if they own the place, and weapons are often smuggled inside.

Sometimes, they even send armies to take control of the prison and face off with the inmates. When we compare the conditions in Salvadoran prisons to those in developed countries or the lives of free people, they are definitely harsh and undesirable. However, compared to the reality of many other Latin American countries, Salvadoran prisons are relatively better. They are clean and orderly, with fewer homicides and fights, which starkly contrasts the severe conditions seen in other regions.

I'm not going to name the country, but there was an incident in a prison where a single fight resulted in the deaths of nearly fifty women. Fifty women died in this fight. Wouldn't it be better to have that prison under control? That there was order, cleanliness, and discipline? That everything is orderly and that everyone has to walk a little. Others need to eat, and when they are done eating, they need to go back to their cells.

I understand it is uncomfortable, but these are prisons, not parks. We are talking about criminals who have, in some cases, killed 10, 15, or even 20 people and have confessed. Compared to the prisons in Latin America—though I acknowledge there may be a few countries with well-managed facilities—the vast majority are in total chaos. This is not the case in El Salvador. If we compare rates such as overcrowding and mortality, they are quite acceptable compared to the rest of Latin America.

The other is, for example, in the case of CECOT, which is our most emblematic prison, it is the most open prison in the world—not open for them to escape, but open for the press. The BBC has visited it, as have YouTubers. That is, it is the most open prison in the world. Whoever asks us for permission to visit, we let them in.

You yourself post about it on TikTok all the time.

Bukele: Yes. I post content about it all the time, but let's say that what I post might be filtered by the government, so we only post what we want to share. The press visits it. We allow them to interview randomly, "I want to interview that inmate who is in that corner." They interview them and ask, “Look, have you been tortured?", "No, I have not been tortured." You could see if they had some kind of bruise or something.

In other words, some questions are grounded in solid concerns. Still, they should be considered in the context of the reality in Latin America, El Salvador, and the Salvadoran population. Take food, for example. Food is limited in prisons, not in quantity but in quality. For example, tortillas, beans, rice, and cheese. It doesn't have meat. It doesn't have shrimp, but what does the average Salvadoran eat? How can I ask the Salvadoran people, who often have modest meals like beans and tortillas for dinner, to pay taxes on those beans and tortillas to provide meat and chicken to prisoners who have killed their family members?

I can't do that. We need to provide them with food that meets their nutritional needs, including protein and carbohydrates, but at a level comparable to the average Salvadoran's diet. We cannot offer them a better quality of life than the average Salvadoran, who has endured 50 years of violence, should pay for.

Obviously, it's also a type of showcase you're presenting on social media. Now, many across the region are adopting the idea of the “Bukele model.” How do you define the “Bukele model”?

Bukele: I have always said we are open to supporting any government. We recently signed an agreement with the Government of Argentina and have received support requests from various other governments. We are here to support them in anything. For example, I believe that controlling prisons should be a basic requirement for any country.

One thing that surprises me is that many countries don’t do something as simple and effective as blocking cell phone signals in prisons. This involves using a device that disrupts signals, cutting off Wi-Fi, internet, and phone access without violating any rights or using physical force. Blocking cell phone signals would effectively stop the transmission of murder orders and cut off a significant amount of information coming in and out of prisons.

We have offered advice as needed, understanding that each reality is unique. Sometimes, they say, "The Bukele model." Yes, of course. It's not called that, but we're happy to name it however you like. Each country has its own unique reality. It would be important to adapt what applies from El Salvador to each country's unique situation and disregard what does not fit their context.

Sure. But here, it was obviously only possible after applying the state of exception, right?

Bukele: Yes, of course.

Those are extraordinary measures that most countries would not be able to apply.

Bukele: No, some can. In fact, some countries have applied the exception regime. As I told you a while ago, it depends on which country, it depends on their reality, and it depends on what they are facing. I remember when I was mayor of Nuevo Cuscatlán, the first municipality where I was a public official. We started doing a good job there.

People would say, "It's just that they do it there because it's so small. It's easy." I would tell them, "Yes, it's indeed small. We also don't have a beach; we don't have natural resources." If I were in a coastal municipality, perhaps I would have thought of betting on tourism. If we were in a municipality with large tracts of land, we would have bet on agriculture. Since we were in a municipality without those resources, we relied on our proximity to the capital as an advantage.

You always have to do your SWOT, what are your strengths and what are your weaknesses, what are the threats, what are the objectives. In the case of El Salvador, we looked at what we had. We had a weak army, so we strengthened it by doubling its size. We had a police force that needed to be modernized, a prison system that criminals controlled, and a crime phenomenon that we share with some countries but not all.

There was a very large social component to the gang phenomenon. Some experts can talk about it very well, and it is not that they are not right. There were several realities. There were legal realities and practical constraints regarding what we had available in terms of representatives and popular support. There will be other countries that do not have some of these things but have others. They have other advantages: better budgets and better weaponry.

I know of countries that might not have a state of exception, but they have planes, an army 50 times bigger than ours, advanced technology, ample financial resources, and the ability to borrow and print money. We don't have any of those things. There are always pros and cons, but if a government wants to solve an issue, it should be able to do so.

I don't think that should be so controversial to say; it should be the norm. Governments are there to solve people's problems. The first problem to be solved must be the most urgent. Which is the most urgent? It depends on the country in question.In El Salvador, there's no doubt—and no one can claim otherwise, they say do so but they would be lying—that the most urgent and serious problem we faced at that time was insecurity.

Is it strange for you to see your name, across the world, now be synonymous with iron fist policies on security matters?

Bukele: Yes. I never expected to become the reference for iron fist measures. I have always believed that societies progress through a comprehensive approach to problems. I have never been against this; I've said before that crime often arises from a range of factors, usually social. In El Salvador's case, our problems included a lack of opportunities and the destruction of the social fabric.

The vast majority of gang members joined gangs due to a lack of family, a lack of opportunities, and the social pressure to join. Then, once inside, they were pressured to kill. After killing the first person, they become desensitized. They kill the second, and then they kill the third.

I understand that if that boy had been stopped young and sent to school, we could have taught him other things, and he might have never become a gang member. He would have never killed anyone, nor would it have even occurred to him to kill anyone. He probably would have been a good man. I do not doubt and accept that the state failed him by not providing him with opportunities or a minimum social safety net. The state was a significant factor—probably the main one—in this young man becoming a criminal.

What can I do? I can't go back in time to 1990 and say, "All these guys are going to become gang members. We're going to take them to school." The governments in the 1990s should have done that. They didn't do it. This is a juvenile social problem that began in the United States related to retail drug sales, and then it arrived here. It wasn't even that bad when the gangs started. They had their quarrels between them, sometimes there was a dead man, but it was not a giant crime phenomenon.

Then, it became the most dangerous country in the world. Literally the homicide capital of the world, with three times the homicide rate than Haiti has now. Haiti is considered a failed state. El Salvador had triple that homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants. I understand that the state failed [these people,] which should not have happened. However, this criminal who killed 10 people, raped 20 women, and beheaded eight others is beyond reintegration into society. He is deeply sick.

We don't put them in jail to punish them. We put them in jail to get them off the street. They can't be on the streets. They cannot be in the community besieging their neighbors. We catch them and remove them from society by putting them in a cell. It is the happiest end for a society, but unfortunately, that's how it happened. It's like someone who has damaged their liver from drinking excessively. Then the doctor tells them, "I'm not going to operate on your liver because the problem is your drinking." So, turn back the clock. Stop drinking, and your liver will be fine." No way. He needs a transplant or something. We had to come in with a healing solution.

If any country can address these issues sooner with preventive solutions, it would be more noble, better, and have more lasting results. It's commendable and beneficial if they can achieve that. We couldn't do it. Now that we have brought peace to the country, we must invest in youth and children to prevent future issues. This way, we can avoid another president needing to impose an exception regime in 15 to 20 years and arrest 1% of the population again.

Hopefully, it won't be necessary in the future. We aim to lay the foundations for a peaceful society, similar to developed nations, not because of their prison systems or punitive policies but because their societies function effectively.

In 2021, you requested a meeting with the White House during a visit to Washington, and I read it was rejected. Biden officials and U.S. government officials publicly criticized your government, saying they had “deep concerns” about the state of your democracy. Now, three years later, the Biden administration sent a high-level delegation to your inauguration, including Secretary Mayorkas. What caused this turnaround? Did it surprise you?

Bukele: Yes. I think there are several things. I can do a big analysis on that, but I think the main thing is that we won. When we did all this, before starting the war against the gangs, we made changes in the courts, the Prosecutor’s Office, and so on. Just as we are now recognized by 100% of governments and organizations, we were condemned, not by 100% of them, but by all those who were interested in El Salvador. The whole world condemned us. That is, the European Union, individual European countries, and the United States, just to name a few.

Then, we started this fight against the greatest problem that El Salvador had—and again, El Salvador was the world capital of homicides—it was not an isolated problem we had but a problem the world recognized. It was an overwhelming victory, we had no civilian casualties. Fighting an irregular army of 70,000 men could have resulted in civilian casualties from crossfire, as could have been the case anywhere. We didn't have that here; we didn't have civilian casualties.

At a minimum, we had single-digit casualties among our security forces. Even the deceased gang members-- I don't know if I have the data here, but even the deceased gang members were very few. Here it is. In 2024, zero dead soldiers. Zero dead police officers. In 2023, two police officers died. Zero soldiers died. Gang members who have died in combat. In 2024, three have died. In 2023, 40 died, and in 2022, 90 died.

That is, during the state of exception, there have been two police casualties, 133 gang members killed, and zero civilian casualties. We turned the world capital of homicides, the most insecure country in the world, into the safest country in the entire Western Hemisphere. What's more, this year, we already surpassed Canada because, at the end of 2023, we were second with a rate of 2.4. Canada had a rate of 2.0. Canada surpasses us, but this year, our projected rate is 1.8. Well below Canada's projected rate.

Having achieved these results with this budget, without anyone's help, if anything with the whole world’s condemnation, forced them to change their discourse. Because I feel that, as you mentioned a while ago, the Bukele model around here [isn something] they want to copy over there. Suddenly, it's better to embrace it, try to regulate it, and try not to let it get out of the, the--

Not to condemn it publicly?

Bukele: Yes, try not to fight against something that is too popular, not just in El Salvador but in all of Latin America.

The U.S. Treasury Department also sanctioned officials from your government for negotiating with gangs, for prison benefits—can you respond to that?

Bukele: Yes. Again, that was before. They had sanctions from the Department of the Treasury and the Department of State. Surprisingly, they had that policy of sanctions applied only to the three countries of northern Central America, not to the others or other countries in the world.

These lists were specifically for these countries, demonstrating the political nature of the sanctions. However, that happened before. Some might have stayed on the list because getting out of it is hard. Now, it’s their problem. I did think at that time that it was absurd. To say that we negotiated with the gangs-- What kind of negotiation? That we were going to finish them off and wipe them off the map, that they were going to jail?

To lower the level of violence, right?

Bukele: Well, but what did we give the gang members in exchange?

Allegedly, prison benefits.

Bukele: Well, let's say they were given prison benefits because, again, it's easy to start narratives, but let's get to the facts. Even before the emergency regime, the prisons had no signal in El Salvador. There are videos from 2013 and 2012. There used to be YouTube videos posted by gangs where they are in the prisons with prostitutes, strippers, parties, doing drugs.

Any Salvadoran knows this, as well as anyone who has studied the phenomenon of violence in El Salvador.⁠ There were benefits in prison. What's more, they say they sanctioned officials for negotiating with gangs. In 2012 and 2013, there was a negotiation with gangs here in El Salvador, during which the Secretary General of the OAS came to El Salvador to negotiate. During this time, gang members handed over weapons to him.

He said, "I congratulate El Salvador for negotiating with the gangs." There was a negotiation with gangs where the government, the Catholic Church, and the Organization of American States were present. There was international funding for that negotiation with the gangs. At that time, gang members were freely entering and leaving the prisons. There are videos on YouTube showing them partying with prostitutes and strippers and doing drugs. These videos are still available online; anyone can find them.

Since we took over, there have been no videos of prostitutes, strippers, or gang members on the streets meeting with the Secretary General of the OAS. There is no signal for such activities, and gang members are not on the streets. The prisons have been extremely orderly. It is fully verified and what they say is, "No, but they gave them prison benefits."

Aren't gang members saying now, "Well, before, I had the right to have internet, prostitutes, drugs, and strippers, to leave and come back, and to order murders from here. They have taken all that away from me, but they are going to give me a hamburger at Christmas."

Could it be the other way around? Those who negotiated prison benefits with gang members—not just the inmates—are implicated. There are journalistic investigations and international reports documenting these issues. It was in question whether the Army had allowed gang members to use the shooting ranges. There are photographs and videos of gang members using the Army’s shooting ranges to practice shooting.

Obviously, they practice hitting people in the head and heart, and the Army of El Salvador lent the shooting ranges to gang members. That's documented. There is no documentation that this is being done now. On the contrary, the Army goes with the police, catches them, and puts them in jail. The idea that we negotiated benefits, either with those on the outside or those on the inside, doesn't fit well.

To confirm, you are saying that your government never negotiated with the gangs and that what the U.S. government is saying is false?

Bukele: It's totally false. What shows this is not what I say, as I will always claim we've done things well—that's to be expected. But what is real is that—what exactly is the benefit? Moreover, the same people who accuse us of giving benefits to gang members are the same people who accuse us of being very hard on gang members.

You can't have it [both ways]. Either we give benefits to the gang members, or we are very hard on the gang members, but you can't have both. It makes no sense. Another important thing. One of those sanctioned—I’m not defending him—may have legal issues to address. That will be his problem. We have a very strong justice system here, regardless of who is involved, and we’ve demonstrated that from the cabinet on down. We address crimes impartially, no matter who the individual is.

But there is one reality, and you can verify it. Journalists have verified it. You can see it on the ground and in the prisons. The most orderly prisons in Latin America are those of El Salvador. Isn't it suspicious that in the prisons, where the head of the prison oversees facilities controlled by drug traffickers and criminals, these criminals have free rein? When the Army arrives, they face gunfire from within the prison, and yet the prison officials in charge are not punished.

The US government has sanctioned no heads of prisons where crime and drug traffickers are prevalent. The only prison where there is total order, where criminals and drug traffickers do not rule, and where no one is ordering murders is the one that has been sanctioned.

I don't care. They can do whatever they want, and I told them this in several meetings. It's their country, and they have the right to impose sanctions and make decisions as they see fit. However, it seems a bit illogical and counterintuitive that they sanctioned the head of the only prison with order in Latin America. In contrast, other prisons, where drug traffickers and criminals have control, have not faced similar sanctions.

I'm not saying they deserve them, but it appears contradictory that the only well-managed facility is penalized. At the same time, those with significant issues remain unsanctioned. I don't want to get into conspiracy theories, but it seems a little counterintuitive, at least to me.

I also want to ask you about the adoption of Bitcoin in El Salvador, especially now that you are going to focus more on the economy. In your opinion, has it been a success?

Bukele: Yes and no; a lot more could definitely be done. Bitcoin hasn't had the widespread adoption we hoped for. Many Salvadorans use it; The majority of large businesses in the country have it. You can go to a McDonald's, a supermarket, or a hotel and pay with Bitcoin. It hasn’t had the adoption we expected. The positive aspect is that it is voluntary; we have never forced anyone to adopt it. We offered it as an option, and those who chose to use it have benefited from the rise in Bitcoin.

Moreover, those who saved in Bitcoin when we launched it must have made a lot of money. Thank God for that. It's good that people have those earnings. Those who decided not to use it did not have those gains. If they use it now, they will probably have gains in the future. If they do not want to use it, this is a free country. I expected more adoption, definitely, but we always prided ourselves on being a free country, free in every way.

Sometimes, there's confusion because of our tough stance on gangs. However, we are a free country. For example, I believe few countries can say this: we have never repressed a demonstration. In five years of government, we have never used a tear gas can or a baton.

You won't find a photograph of one of our police officers hitting someone with a baton. There just aren’t any. I am not saying we will never do it […] still, we have never needed to use a single tear gas can. When the opposition protests, we even withdraw the police to avoid misunderstandings or potential provocations. We prefer to remove the police and let them stain the monuments and break windows, and then we go in and repair the damage.

It is the same with the Bitcoin issue. For me, it is an option we have given to Salvadorans. I'm not going to say it's the currency of the future, but there's a lot of future in that currency. I'm not the only one saying it. I wasn't among the first, but we were still few in 2021. Right now, you have the largest funds in the world, literally the largest funds in the world. BlackRock has the largest Bitcoin ETF.

You bet a lot on Bitcoin.

Bukele: El Salvador invested $135 million. Now, we have $400 million in Bitcoin in the public wallet alone. We have done well as a government. Salvadorans who used and saved it have done very well for obvious reasons, such as the price increase. Those who have not used it have no obligation to use it. The currency that circulates the most in El Salvador is the United States dollar.

I feel that it could have worked better, and there is still time to make some improvements, but it hasn’t resulted in anything negative. On the contrary, it gave us branding, it brought us investments, it brought us tourism.

And a lot of attention.

Bukele: It's brought us a lot of positive attention. Some criticism, but it is to be expected. What it has brought is financial inclusion for many people and profit for many others. It has brought profit to the country. The fact that major Wall Street companies are now engaging in it—something that seemed unthinkable three years ago when we did it—shows its impact. Some countries already hold reserves in Bitcoin or are investing in Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining. It is already becoming a topic of debate in the US presidential campaign.

In the end, the fact of being a “First Mover,” I think, gives us a small advantage, as far as it goes. I feel that it could have been much better. I wouldn't consider it a resounding success. Still, I do believe that the positive outcomes outweigh the negative, and the issues that have been highlighted are relatively minor.

Even the International Monetary Fund itself stated in its report last year, "The risks of Bitcoin in El Salvador have not materialized," meaning the risks they anticipated did not come to pass. We have seen nothing but benefits. As many as I would have wanted? No, but did it bring something bad? No. It's a net positive.

Speaking of your image, you've obviously built much of your political career through social media. You have more followers on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok than the population of your country. A significant number of your posts are in English. Who is your audience?

Bukele: Yes. 100% of my Facebook posts are in Spanish. 100% of my messages on Instagram are in Spanish or both languages, first Spanish and then English. 100% of my messages on TikTok are in Spanish or both languages, first Spanish and then English. On Twitter, I post some messages in English because we have seen a lot of engagement from the United States. That social media platform is more politicized than the others. Normal people tend to be more active on the other platforms. Normal people like Instagram more—

Salvadorans?

Bukele -— they like TikTok more. Yes, Salvadorans and normal people around the world. That is, young people, people who are not so involved in politics use Instagram more.

But you love Twitter.

Bukele: Yes, because I'm a politician.

Do you write your own posts?

Bukele: Yes, I write them, but we noticed an interesting audience for our country’s agenda and how we project our country on Twitter (now known as X), and for us, it is an opportunity. We do not pay for advertising in other countries or have the budget. We cannot compete with bigger tourist destinations or those attracting major investors. However, we've found that my social media presence has served as a window for investors, investment funds, banks, important figures, and politicians. Why not use it for what we want to do and our goals as a country?

In your Twitter bio you call yourself a “Philosopher King.” What does that mean?

Bukele: It is the concept that a leader should be a philosopher before he is a king. Obviously, I am neither a philosopher nor a king. Still, this concept is attributed to Marcus Aurelius, who is considered the first Philosopher King.

It describes someone who meditates on all angles, analyzes every possibility within a decision, and asks, "What is the best decision I can make for the people I serve?" In my case, that would be the Salvadoran people.

The decisions, or at least what I aspire to, are not based on what is most popular or what offers the fastest return. Instead of, “What is best for me personally or our political movement?” the question is, “What is in the best interest of my people and the future of my country?” That way of thinking, analyzing, questioning, and philosophizing before making a decision is a style of government. I don't use that biography on other platforms.

It's for a different audience?

Bukele: I use the term "Philosopher King" primarily on X because, while not everyone may understand it, many on that platform grasp what I mean. I believe presidents, chancellors, prime ministers, and all heads of government should aspire to be more like Philosopher Kings. They should strive to be thoughtful leaders rather than the typical politician who is hated by their people.

You have also used your [Twitter] bio to mock those who call you a dictator. Does it bother you that the world considers you an authoritarian?

Bukele: Yes and no. It bothers me when arguments are presented in a way that have little grounding in reality. However, it doesn't bother me to the extent that I think it's a reality. I believe it's important to address these arguments, recognizing that everything comes at a cost. Everything in life has a cost. For example, I like what I do, but it comes with various costs. I can't walk quietly down the street and go out with my daughters for a walk. That is to say, there is a cost.

I once said that I had traded my security. I used to be the safest person in the country because I had bodyguards, armored cars, and everything, and the country was insecure. I traded my security for that of the Salvadoran people. Now the country has safety, but I do not, because drug traffickers, gang members, criminals, and mafias now target me to undermine the benefits we are providing to Salvadorans. As I said, everything in life has a cost, and the cost of being called authoritarian is too small to bother me much. Now, I don't like it, but it's not like it keeps me up at night either.

You’ve made significant changes in your first term. You are quite young. Would you run again if Salvadoran voters want you to continue in office in 2029?

Bukele: I can't run for president again according to the Constitution because of the prohibition established by Article 152. Also, we have an agreement with my wife that this is my last term.

Really?

Yes.

You will be only 47 years old when you leave office.

Bukele: Yes.

Have you thought about what comes next?

Bukele: No, not yet. It will be a challenge because I don't see myself returning to the corporate world. I don't know. The tooth's response to the lip would be to write a book or something along those lines, but I'm not sure. I don't think about what I will do in 2029.

I'm going to ask you one more question. Obviously—I had many more questions, but never mind.

Bukele: I have the World Bank outside. Otherwise, I would gladly give you three more hours.

You obviously have a lot to say. Why don't you speak to the press more?

Bukele: I used to do it more, but I feel like I used to do it because I was younger. I'm not so young anymore. Yes, I am somewhat young but not as young as before; I am not a boy. Previously, I had well-grounded criteria based on my ideology, and journalism was something I respected greatly. I saw it as a noble profession dedicated to seeking the truth and essential for holding power accountable and keeping the public informed.

I'm not sure if journalism has changed over time or if I've come to see reality. Still, I've found that, for the most part, journalism often functions as propaganda. The difference is that state propaganda at least openly acknowledges that it is propaganda. That is, we put out a spot, and no one hides that it is propaganda. When journalism publishes an article, people think it's journalism. When I observe the agendas, I even see journalists defending the idea that journalism must have an agenda. These journalists defend the fact that journalism should follow an agenda instead of seeking the truth, all to become a form of counter-power.

I see falsehoods written about us and things that are overlooked about others. I know that things change, but in some countries, media outlets are closed, and journalists are arrested. Yet, we are condemned despite having never arrested any journalists or closed any media outlets. One realizes that there is almost always an agenda behind journalism. The journalism I once respected often aligns with that agenda, serving the interests of financiers or editorial boards with their own commitments.

I began to see journalism differently, and I started to enjoy talking to the press less. With the rise of social media, it's a way to reach the population directly without going through the press filter. If I don't need to talk to the press-- and I'm not talking about those present, I'm not talking about you. I recognize it and assume you are a great journalist; that's why you work for a great media outlet and everything.

I have less respect for journalism than I had before, and I don't feel the need to talk to them like before, so I rarely give interviews […] I feel that it becomes unnecessary. It's a profession that has a very noble origin. It changed the world with printing. Everything changed then, and we can talk about it, but that's another topic.

I feel I am not a journalist and should not tell journalists what to do. Still, I believe journalism should somehow return to its origins or at least to what I once thought it was, rather than continuing as it is now.

There is a lot of interest in your country, and I know that many other journalists would like to talk to you.

Bukele: Maybe.

Thank you very much.