Illustration by Global Voices
This story is part of Undertones, Global Voices’ Civic Media Observatory‘s newsletter. Subscribe to Undertones.
In 2015, United Nations (UN) leaders, as part of their agreement under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, committed to a world in which “democracy, good governance and the rule of law, as well as an enabling environment at the national and international levels, are essential for sustainable development, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development, environmental protection and the eradication of poverty and hunger.” The 2030 Agenda reiterated the pledges already made during the 2005 World Summit and outlined in the Millennium Declaration.
Today, a decade after the launch of the UN’s 2030 Agenda, the goals set forth still appear far from being achieved. But what is preventing countries from moving faster? The list of factors is endless. Yet, the global rise of populism, a political approach that is “invariably divisive,” “thrives on conspiracy,” and “criminalizes all opposition,” seems to be one of the key variables undermining the pluralistic aspect of good governance and democracies.
As academic Kenneth M. Roberts explains in “Government and Opposition,” a journal published by the University of Cambridge, “polarization may be the most consistent effect of populism,” as it constructs “an anti-establishment political frontier, politicizes new policy or issue dimensions, and challenges democracy’s institutional and procedural norms.”
The principles of “separation of powers” and “judicial independence” are recognized by the United Nations as essential elements of a democratic system — a part of the “institutional and procedural norms” that Roberts describes as a target of populism.
Narrative: Members of the judiciary are operating as activists
This narrative frame is supported by the belief that judges and sometimes the whole judicial branch issue rulings and act in favor of a specific political party or side of the political spectrum.
The politicians and public personalities advancing this narrative frame portray themselves as champions of democracy, positioning their critique of the judiciary as a step toward building a more just democratic system in their nations. Yet, they fail to acknowledge that the criteria behind the decisions of the judicial branch should be the country’s law, as its crucial role is to resolve disputes by applying the rule of law, which does not always align with their interests.
During the 2024 US presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump and his allies portrayed the criminal investigations against him for actions in his first term as president as a deliberate effort to undermine his credibility, accusing his opponents of political persecution. Similarly, after assuming office, President Trump has repeatedly questioned, and at times ignored, the rulings of judges who issued orders blocking policies he sought to implement that did not always align with the country's legal framework.
More recently, on March 31, 2025, Marine Le Pen, France's leading far-right politician, was found guilty of embezzling funds from the European Parliament. The court imposed a four-year prison sentence and prohibited her from holding any public office for five years, effectively disqualifying her from the 2027 presidential race, where she had been viewed as a top contender. Le Pen and her supporters argue that the ruling is an effort to undermine her presidential candidacy, framing it as part of a political “witch hunt” to disrupt the upcoming elections.
How this narrative is shared online when the populist politician holds power
In this tweet, US Congressman Brandon Gill claims he plans to present impeachment articles against Federal Judge James Boasberg as a response to the judge's order to stop the deportation of over 200 Venezuelan and Salvadoran men.
By calling Judge Boasberg an activist, Congressman Gill implies that his rulings are not objective and that the judicial branch is not acting independently, as it should.
On March 16, President Trump used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador to be held, without trial or sentencing, in the country's mega-prison. That same day, Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order to block the deportations, which didn't stop the plane with the first group of deportees from arriving in El Salvador. Weeks after that, the US Supreme Court directed the Trump administration to pause the deportation of Venezuelan men being held in immigration custody, following claims from their attorneys that the men faced immediate removal without the court review that the justices had earlier required.
Judge Boasberg has since faced personal attacks by Republican lawmakers over his restraining order, including from President Trump himself, who called him “a Radical Left lunatic, a troublemaker and agitator,” urging his impeachment.
The item received 1,770 quote posts, 12k comments, 20k reposts, 118k likes, and 1.8k bookmarks. It was ranked -2 under our civic impact score, as it undermines the judicial branch's role in checking the constitutionality of the executive branch's actions.
How this narrative is asserted online when the populist politician is part of the opposition
In this X item, X owner Elon Musk amplifies and expands on a post claiming that “the radical left” routinely abuses the judicial system wherever it cannot win elections, on the day Marine Le Pen was sentenced. The quoted post names several far-right and populist political leaders worldwide who have faced judicial prosecution in recent years.
To advance his argument that “the radical left” undemocratically persecutes conservative politicians globally, Elon Musk makes a sweeping and inaccurate generalization about politically incumbent forces in several countries, which even the original item does not assert. For example, Romania's coalition government is composed of three parties, one of which is Christian Democratic. Imran Khan in Pakistan was essentially ousted from power and judicially persecuted by the military, whose chief was recently targeted by a bipartisan bill in the US Congress.
By listing all those leaders together, Elon Musk is equalizing what he considers the precarious state of democracy in all those countries.
Mike Benz, whose post Musk is quote-posting in this item, is a former Trump administration official and anti-internet censorship activist, and previously a reportedly pseudonymous alt-right conspiracy theorist promoting white supremacist disinformation.
The item received 3,076 quote posts, 18k comments, 70k reposts, 259k likes, and 7k bookmarks. It ranked -2 under our civic impact score as it inaccurately generalizes the actions of the judicial branch of several countries without considering the specifics of each case and spreading disinformation on why the leaders listed by Mike Benz were and are being prosecuted.
Read how this narrative is also shared in Italy, Brazil, and Spain
