Ecuadorians reject all proposals in 2025 referendum
Ecuadorians overwhelmingly rejected President Daniel Noboa’s referendum proposals, blocking constitutional changes that would have allowed US military bases and marked a sharp turn in the nation’s political direction.
-
A voter casts her ballot with her children in a referendum on whether to allow foreign military bases in the country and rewrite the constitution through a constituent assembly, in Quito, Ecuador, Sunday, November 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa)
Ecuadorian voters delivered a decisive blow to President Daniel Noboa on November 16, 2025, rejecting all four questions posed in a national referendum. With roughly 90% of the ballots counted, more than 60% of voters opposed lifting the constitutional ban on foreign military bases, and similar majorities rejected proposals to eliminate public funding for political parties, reduce the number of legislators, and convene a constituent assembly.
This outcome dealt a significant setback to Noboa's administration, which had framed the referendum as a solution to Ecuador’s worsening security crisis. His plans to welcome US military installations in Manta and Salinas hinged on overturning the 2008 Constitution's prohibition on foreign bases. However, the majority of Ecuadorians voted to preserve their constitutional protections and sovereignty.
The referendum included three constitutional reforms and one popular consultation:
- Question A proposed removing the ban on foreign military installations, opening the door for a US return to coastal bases.
- Question B aimed to eliminate state financing for political parties, a move critics said would undermine opposition groups.
- Question C sought to halve the National Assembly.
- Question D proposed establishing a constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution.
The results were unequivocal: 60.56% opposed foreign bases, 58.04% voted against ending public party funding, 53.47% rejected the reduction of assembly members, and 61.61% rejected the constituent assembly.
Political fallout for Daniel Noboa
Noboa, who was re-elected in April 2025, positioned himself as a law-and-order leader aligned closely with Washington. He promoted the referendum as a means to address rampant violence and crime, exacerbated by gang activity and weakening public institutions. Yet the electorate's verdict reflected broader dissatisfaction, not only with the proposals, but also with the government’s approach to governance.
The administration’s removal of diesel subsidies in September, which triggered a month-long national strike and left three dead, deeply damaged public trust. This unrest, paired with concerns over sovereignty and democratic erosion, fueled a grassroots rejection of Noboa’s agenda.
Grassroots mobilization
Opposition to the referendum coalesced into a broad front that included environmentalists, labor unions, indigenous movements, and former President Rafael Correa's supporters. The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) led the "No" campaign through a nationwide "minga," or communal mobilization, emphasizing collective defense of Ecuador's sovereignty and constitutional rights.
Despite the government's well-funded media campaign and endorsements from international allies, the opposition leveraged community assemblies and grassroots activism to reach voters. The referendum thus became a referendum not just on policy, but on the legitimacy of foreign influence and elite-driven reform.
Implications for US military strategy in Latin America
Washington had quietly backed Noboa's plan to reintroduce US forces to Ecuador. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem toured the proposed base sites days before the vote, a move seen by many as overreach. The US previously operated out of Manta until 2009, when Ecuador’s ban on foreign bases forced its departure.
The rejection halts plans for permanent US installations in Ecuador and complicates regional military operations, particularly counternarcotics missions in the eastern Pacific. Without Ecuadorian bases, the US must rely on more distant and costly alternatives in El Salvador, Puerto Rico, or at sea.