El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele responded publicly to European Union criticism of a new law taxing foreign-funded NGOs, bypassing conventional diplomatic protocol. The EU statement had labeled El Salvador’s Foreign Agents Law a threat to civil society. Bukele replied on Twitter, calling the EU “aging, overregulated, energy-dependent, tech-lagging, and led by unelected bureaucrats.”
Upgrade to paid
The law imposes a 30 percent tax on all foreign donations received by domestic non-governmental organizations. It was passed by El Salvador’s legislature and takes effect eight days after publication. Supporters say it is designed to reduce foreign interference and increase transparency. Critics say it targets civil society groups and resembles similar laws passed in authoritarian states.
Bukele’s use of Twitter to respond directly to the EU’s 450 million citizens bypassed embassies, foreign ministries, and formal communication channels. His post reached more people in hours than official diplomatic cables would in months. The move reflects a wider shift in international politics where state leaders use direct digital platforms to engage foreign publics.
The EU has not issued a follow-up response to Bukele’s remarks. No formal diplomatic consequences have been announced. The law is being implemented as scheduled.
The cllash comes amid wider criticism from Western institutions of El Salvador’s domestic policies. Bukele’s administration has faced scrutiny over press freedoms, rule-of-law concerns, and the concentration of executive power. He has dismissed these concerns, accusing foreign governments of selective outrage and hypocrisy.
Under Bukele’s leadership, El Salvador has passed a series of reforms focused on public security, mining, and fiscal management. His anti-gang crackdown reduced homicides by over 70 percent, according to World Bank figures. The government has also implemented debt buybacks and cut public financing for political parties, moves Bukele says are aimed at fiscal discipline and curbing corruption.
A new mining framework is projected to generate $131 billion in revenue. In parallel, the government ended state funding of election campaigns. International institutions, including the IMF, have supported El Salvador’s debt restructuring efforts.
El Salvador’s GDP grew 2.6 percent in 2024. The government attributes the increase to improved security and a stable investment environment. Bukele’s administration also signed a bilateral prison cooperation agreement with the United States.
The EU remains critical of El Salvador’s direction, particularly over democratic norms and NGO restrictions. Bukele has continued to frame foreign criticism as ideological and disconnected from local realities. He maintains that national sovereignty requires shielding institutions from foreign influence.
No multilateral sanctions or funding suspensions have been announced in response to the law. The EU’s existing aid and cooperation programs with El Salvador remain active.
The Foreign Agents Law defines a foreign agent as any individual or entity receiving funds from abroad for political, social, or media activities. Under tha///1/////1/////1////111//////new law, recipients must register and submit to oversight. The legislation does not ban foreign funding but makes it subject to tax and government reporting.
The law is not unique to El Salvador. Similar frameworks exist in the United States and Russia. The Salvadoran government argues that the tax is in line with international norms and that foreign influence should be disclosed and regulated.
Bukele’s comments drew support from some Latin American commentators who view the law as part of a broader shift toward stronger national governance. The usual suspects warned it could be used to intimidate dissenting voices and shrink civic space.
Q
The EU has not indicated any change in its diplomatic posture toward El Salvador. The law’s long-term impact on EU-Salvadoran relations remains unclear.
Several African nations, such as Zimbabwe, Kenya, and Tanzania, have long experienced political volatility tied to the influx of foreign funding into both government-aligned and opposition-linked entities, as well as civic groups. The El Salvador model presents a case for rethinking how such funding is regulated. By introducing legal frameworks that tax and monitor foreign contributions without outright banning them, governments in these regions could assert greater sovereignty, reduce opaque influence networks, and demand accountability from both donors and recipients. The objective wouldn’t be to restrict civil space, but to insulate national politics from cycles of external manipulation that have often undermined stability.
