Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia Part II

 

Sen. Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador and meeting with Abrego Garcia

In an April 13 letter to Milena Mayorga, the Salvadoran ambassador to the US, Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland requested a meeting with Bukele during his visit to the United States the next day, to discuss Abrego Garcia's return. The meeting did not occur, and on April 16, Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador from the United States with the intention of visiting Abrego Garcia in prison to assess his health and to meet with representatives of the Salvadoran government in an effort to obtain his release.

At a press conference later that day, Van Hollen said that he had met with El Salvador's vice president, Félix Ulloa, who told him that the senator had not given sufficient advance notice to arrange a visit with Abrego Garcia. When Van Hollen asked whether he could return the following week, or if either he or Abrego Garcia's wife could speak with him by phone, Ulloa suggested he direct those requests to the US Embassy. Van Hollen said that he asked why Abrego Garcia was being held at CECOT even though he had not been convicted of any crimes in either the US or El Salvador, and described Ulloa's response as "the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador to keep him at CECOT."

On April 17, Salvadoran officials brought Abrego Garcia to meet Van Hollen at his hotel. Abrego Garcia was provided with non-prison clothes and a cap to cover his head, which had been shaved by the prison. According to Van Hollen, Abrego Garcia told him during that meeting that he had been moved from CECOT to a prison in Santa Ana, El Salvador, eight days before, and that his experience at CECOT "traumatized" him. The DOJ later said that the Santa Ana facility is the Centro Industrial Penitentiary.

According to Van Hollen, the Salvadoran government tried to have the meeting occur poolside, but the senator said he had them take it to a dining area indoors. While they were talking, margarita-like drinks were placed in front of them, which they did not drink. Pictures including the drinks were used by Bukele in social media posts to ridicule the meeting and deny that Abrego Garcia had been treated poorly. Van Hollen later said "I mean, this is a guy who's been in CECOT. This guy has been detained. They want to create this appearance that life was just lovely for Kilmar, which, of course, is a big fat lie."

Concerning the meeting, Bukele tweeted, "Now that he's been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador's custody." Trump accused Van Hollen of grandstanding, saying the senator "looked like a fool".

Roger Stone accused Van Hollen of violating the Logan Act, "a 200-year-old law aimed at preventing people from undermining the government". However, Julian Ku, a law professor at Hofstra University, noted that accusations of violations of the Logan Act are a "useful way for people to accuse each other of undermining US foreign policy" but is not a "meaningful law" that is "likely to ever be used", especially given that no one has ever been convicted under the law, and the last prosecution happened in 1853.

On April 29, Van Hollen sent a letter to Trump, detailing his meeting with Ulloa. Van Hollen stated that Ulloa had said "We have a deal with the U.S. government. They send people. We host them. They pay. And that's it." Van Hollen added that if Trump can defy a court order and strip Abrego Garcia of his rights, the same could happen with anyone else. Van Hollen later released a video of his discussion with Ulloa, confirming the quote in his letter to Trump. In the video, Ulloa also said that El Salvador had no evidence of Abrego Garcia being a criminal.

Others travel to El Salvador to seek his release

Meanwhile, on April 16, Representative Delia Ramirez, a Democratic member of the House Homeland Security Committee, proposed a congressional member delegation to El Salvador. Representative Mark Green, the Republican committee chair, denied the request, replying the next day that the Democrats were welcome to "use their own personal credit cards" to visit the prison.

The week after Van Hollen's trip, four Democratic members of the House of Representatives – Yassamin Ansari (Arizona), Maxine Dexter (Oregon), Maxwell Frost (Florida) and Robert Garcia (California) – traveled to El Salvador, accompanied by Chris Newman, one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers. They were again hoping to meet with Abrego Garcia, and seeking his release and return to the US. Frost said that another purpose of the trip was to ensure that "our country is following our laws", a concern echoed by others. Ansari said that the case was not only about Abrego Garcia himself, but about "the future of our democracy" and due process. Newman also spoke of the need for Abrego Garcia to have access to counsel. The group's request to meet with Abrego Garcia was rejected.

Prior to the trip, Garcia and Frost had written James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, asking that the trip be considered an official delegation, but the request was rejected. The Republicans on the committee tweeted "Your request to visit a foreign MS-13 gang member in El Salvador on taxpayer dollars (and possibly drink margaritas) has been denied", and the members of the group paid their own way, despite Republican representatives Jason Smith (Missouri) and Riley Moore (West Virginia) having had their requests to visit CECOT approved.

The group also wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asking him to regularly check on Abrego Garcia's well-being, seek his return, and enable his access to counsel. While in El Salvador, the group met with human rights activists at the Universidad Centroamericano and with US embassy staff, from whom they received a classified briefing, and the group sought the release of other detainees. They called attention to some by name, such as Andry José Hernández. Lindsay Toczylowski of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, which represents Hernandez and nine other men that the US sent to CECOT, said "The government wants to disappear these people, so we think talking about who these individuals are and making sure elected officials don't forget about them is the most important lever we have to get them back."

On the weekend of May 25, Representative Glenn Ivey, who represents the district where Abrego Garcia was living in Maryland, traveled to El Salvador in an effort to see Abrego Garcia. Ivey was accompanied by one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers and a member of the union that Abrego Garcia belongs to, who also wished to meet with him. The US ambassador to El Salvador had contacted the Salvadoran government prior to their trip, requesting that the group be able to meet with Abrego Garcia, but it was not approved.

Return to the United States and criminal charges

United States v. Abrego Garcia

On June 6, 2025, the government brought Abrego Garcia back to the US, and the DOJ announced that he had been indicted in Tennessee for unlawfully transporting illegal immigrants for financial gain, and conspiring to do so. The case was assigned to Judge Waverly Crenshaw. The indictment had been filed on May 21 under seal and was unsealed on June 6. A federal arrest warrant was issued after the indictment was filed, and the day of Abrego Garcia's return, Attorney General Bondi said that the US had presented the arrest warrant to the government of El Salvador. President Bukele tweeted that "of course we wouldn't refuse" a US request to return someone to face charges.

One of Abrego Garcia's lawyers, Simon Sandoval Moshenberg, said that the administration's decision to bring Abrego Garcia back to the US in order to prosecute him indicated that it had been "playing games with the court all along". Another of his lawyers, Andrew Rossman, said that the return proved that the administration could have brought him back earlier but "just refused to do so".

The next day, Trump said he did not speak with Bukele about releasing Abrego Garcia, and it "wasn't my decision" to bring him back to the US, but was instead the DOJ's decision. Trump called Senator Van Hollen a "loser" for having defended Abrego Garcia's due process rights, and White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Van Hollen should "immediately apologize to Garcia's victims". Van Hollen responded that he "will never apologize for defending the Constitution", and instead Trump "should apologize to the country for violating his oath to the Constitution."

Ben Schrader, the chief of the criminal division of the US Attorney's Office in Nashville, resigned. According to ABC News, his resignation was based on concerns that Abrego Garcia's case was being pursued for political reasons.

The indictment stems from a late 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, in which Abrego Garcia is now alleged to have been engaged in human smuggling. The owner of the vehicle, Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, who was not there at the time, had previously been convicted of transporting illegal aliens, and after completing his sentence, he was convicted of illegally re-entering the US. Hernandez-Reyes is currently serving a sentence for his illegal re-entry, and in April 2025, federal officers spoke with him in prison, reportedly to question him about the 2022 stop. The officers allegedly granted him limited immunity, and were told that he met Abrego Garcia in 2015 and hired him periodically to transport illegal immigrants. The indictment alleges that Abrego Garcia made more than 100 trips over almost 10 years, and that the larger conspiracy involved smuggling thousands of illegal immigrants, including children and members of the MS-13 gang. Although the indictment discusses co-conspirators, it does not include charges against any of them. It also alleges uncharged crimes, such as transporting illegal firearms.

In her June 6 press conference about the indictment, Bondi said that witnesses had spoken of Abrego Garcia's involvement in other crimes, including murder and the solicitation of child pornography. These allegations were not included the indictment, but were included in the DOJ's motion for pretrial detention. When asked what had changed that Abrego Garcia was now being charged, Bondi said that due to the attention that Abrego Garcia's case had received, there were "recently found facts". According to CNN, a witness reached out to the DOJ due to the case's publicity.

Upon return, Abrego Garcia was taken to court to hear the charges, where he confirmed to the magistrate judge, Barbara Holmes, that he understood them. The DOJ filed a motion that he be held in detention pending trial, on the grounds that he is a flight risk and is too dangerous to release on bail. He would remain in jail at least until Holmes ruled on the detention motion. Abrego Garcia was represented by public defenders, who opposed the pretrial detention motion, arguing that he is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the public, and that the crimes with which he has been charged do not normally involve pretrial detention.

In a June 13 arraignment hearing, Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges. The motion for pretrial detention was also addressed. The government was represented by acting US attorney Rob McGuire. Magistrate Judge Holmes called the flight risk argument "academic", since immigration had already placed a hold on him and could take Abrego Garcia into custody even if she ruled that he should not be held in detention. Peter Joseph, a DHS special agent, was the only witness at the hearing. He said that he was assigned to the case on April 28, 2025, and that the investigation involved information from confidential witnesses and from license plate readers in several states. Four of the five confidential witnesses are members of a single family, and three of five have pending criminal and immigration cases, and made their statements as part of cooperation deals. One of the witnesses is Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, who owned the car Abrego Garcia was driving when he was stopped in Tennessee in 2022. In exchange for his witness testimony, Hernandez-Reyes, who had been imprisoned and was supposed to be deported after serving his sentence, was moved to a half-way house and will be allowed to remain in the US, likely with work authorization. Joseph also said that there was erroneous information in an earlier DHS report about the traffic stop, and that DHS had been able to identify six of the passengers who were in the car at the time, all of whom had entered the country illegally.

On June 18, Abrego Garcia replaced his public defenders with Rascoe Dean, a former deputy criminal chief in the US Attorney's office that is now trying Abrego Garcia, and three lawyers with Hecker Fink LLP, which specializes in defending clients against federal investigations.

On June 22, Holmes denied the DOJ's motion for pretrial detention, as the government had not proved that Abrego Garcia met any of the conditions that result in detention, such as being a flight risk or posing a danger to others. She scheduled a hearing to determine the conditions for his release, while also noting the likelihood that he would be taken into ICE custody upon release. The DOJ appealed Holmes' ruling later that day. On June 30, the judge delayed the release of Abrego Garcia until at least mid July at the request of his lawyers. His lawyers requested the delay due to the possibility García would be immediately deported to another country upon his release from the custody of the US Marshals.

On July 23, Tennessee District Judge Waverly Crenshaw ordered that Abrego Garcia be released on bail, saying that the government had failed to present any convincing evidence that Abrego Garcia would pose a threat to the public if released. However, his release was delayed for 30 days at the request of his lawyers, who asked that he remain in custody while they prepared for possible efforts to deport him once he was released. The same day, Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis barred U.S. immigration authorities from immediately deporting Abrego Garcia once he was released from prison, saying that he must be given at least 72 hours notice to contest the decision if the government wished to open deportation proceedings.

On July 31, Judge Crenshaw ordered the Trump administration to moderate its public comments about Garcia, to ensure a fair trial. The order came after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem referred to Garcia as a "horrible human being" and a "monster" who "should never be released," and accused him of crimes with which he was not charged. The court had previously ordered both sides to cease making public statements about the case.

On August 19, Abrego Garcia's lawyers moved to have the case dismissed on the basis of "selective or vindictive prosecution". They allege that he is being prosecuted as punishment for his civil case challenging his removal to El Salvador, and in an attempt to shift how the public views his deportation. They further allege that the prosecution stems from the government's desire to avoid "the embarrassment of accepting responsibility for its unlawful conduct." The lawyers note that Hernandez-Reyes, a key witness against Abrego Garcia "is a convicted leader of a human smuggling business who has three other felony convictions and was deported five times," and that, despite this, the government arranged for early release from the sentence he was serving and for work authorization, "all as an inducement to cooperate against Mr. Abrego, an alleged subordinate".

He was released from prison in Tennessee on August 22, and returned to Maryland. ICE officials said that they would place him in immigration detention as soon as possible, and would initiate proceedings to deport him to a third country. However a federal judge had ruled that if they do, they must give him three business days warning, to allow him to challenge it. The next day, Abrego Garcia's lawyers supplemented their motion for dismissal, stating that the government was trying to get him to plead guilty to the charges by threatening to deport him to Uganda, but saying that it would instead deport him to Costa Rica if he pleaded guilty to his charges and first served a sentence. The motion said that "the DOJ, DHS, and ICE are using their collective powers" to force a choice between these options. Abrego Garcia's lawyers have characterized deportation to Uganda as a rendition intended to punish him. They asserted that he would be exposed to potential persecution or torture, citing Uganda's documented human rights violations, and vowed to fight the rendition "tooth and nail". A State Department report on Uganda warns of arbitrary or unlawful killings, forced disappearance, and torture and cruel treatment or punishment.

On August 25, during a routine ICE check-in in Baltimore, Maryland that was part of his release conditions, Abrego Garcia was detained, and he was then transferred to an ICE detention center in Farmville, Virginia. Shortly after, the Department of Homeland Security announced on X that Garcia “will be processed for removal to Uganda". The same day, his legal counsel announced that they filed for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to prevent his deportation before the immigration proceedings concluded. This case was also assigned to Judge Xinis, who ordered officials to keep Abrego Garcia in the United States while she considers the lawsuit. She scheduled an evidentiary hearing for October 6, and ordered that in the meantime he must remain within 200 miles of her court in Greenbelt, Maryland, to enable him to confer with his lawyers.

Abrego Garcia's lawyers told Xinis that he had submitted a new asylum application. An immigrant must apply for asylum within a year of entering the US, and his 2019 asylum application was rejected as not having been submitted within the one-year time period. However, because he had reentered the US after his deportation, he again has one year to apply after reentry. The asylum application will be assessed in an immigration court rather than by Xinis.

On September 5, the Trump administration informed Abrego Garcia that it would send him not to Uganda but to Eswatini.

On September 26, Abrego Garcia was transferred from the Farmville, Virginia detention center to the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania.

Trump administration media strategy

The Trump administration initially called Abrego Garcia's deportation a mistake, and on April 11, the day after the Supreme Court's order, Trump said "If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court." Three days later he was reminded of his promise, and answered: "Why don't you just say, 'Isn't it wonderful that we're keeping criminals out of our country?'" and insulted the network asking the question. After insisting their error could not be undone, the administration switched to insisting that no error had been made at all. Calling Abrego Garcia a terrorist and gang member who was rightly sent away, and maintaining almost daily that he would never touch American soil again, the administration worked vigorously to sour the public against him. Trump acknowledged he could but would not return Abrego Garcia in an ABC News interview that aired April 29. "You could get him back. There's a phone on this desk," interviewer Terry Moran said. "I could," Trump replied, adding that if Abrego Garcia "were the gentleman that you [Moran] say he is, I would do that. But he is not."

According to the administration, the Supreme Court's requirement to "facilitate" his release and return did not mean the government had to take any steps to get him back, other than let him in if El Salvador chose to release him. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the April 14 Oval Office meeting with President Bukele, "If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane. That's up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us," while Trump maintained he was powerless to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, as he was in Bukele's custody. Politico called this "a clear legal play" and sidestepping court orders, and noted it as unusual behavior for Trump, who prides himself on strong-arming world leaders.

The same day, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller said "He was not mistakenly sent to El Salvador" and "This was the right person sent to the right place," contradicting both the Supreme Court's decision that Abrego Garcia's deportation was illegal and the administration's previous statements that the deportation was an administrative error.

Miller said that acknowledgment of the error came from "a DOJ lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat," although NBC News noted that Solicitor General Dean John Sauer had also referred to it as an "administrative error" in a filing to the Supreme Court, as had top ICE officer Robert Cerna in a sworn declaration, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who called it a "clerical error".

Miller also said that if Bukele were to return Abrego Garcia, he would be deported again, a view Leavitt concurred with, saying that "Deporting him back to El Salvador was always going to be the result" and that there was no scenario in which he would end up living a peaceful life in the United States. Leavitt accused Abrego Garcia of being a foreign terrorist, gang member, and human trafficker gone back to his home country to face the consequences, adding "I'm not sure what is so difficult about this for everyone in the media to understand."

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin objected to what she described as the characterization of Abrego Garcia as a "media darling" and "just some Maryland father," saying: "Well, Osama bin Laden was also a father, and yet he wasn't a good guy, and they actually are both terrorists."

On April 16, Bondi said Abrego Garcia "is not coming back to our country. ... There was no situation ever where he was going to stay in this country." Others representing the administration made similar statements. On April 18, in response to a New York Times front-page headline reading "Senator Meets With Wrongly Deported Maryland Man in El Salvador", the White House tweeted an image of the front page with several edits in red ink: the word "Wrongly" was crossed out, the words "Maryland Man" were crossed out and replaced with "MS-13 Illegal Alien", and the words "Who's Never Coming Back" were added at the end. The tweet also said "Oh, and by the way, @ChrisVanHollen – he's NOT coming back."

Leavitt told reporters "Foreign terrorists do not have legal protections in the United States of America anymore". She alleged that Abrego Garcia was a leader within MS-13 and had been involved in human trafficking, adding "There's a lot of evidence, and the Department of Homeland Security and ICE have that evidence, and I saw it this morning." She did not elaborate on what she saw. Vice President JD Vance publicly backed the deportation. Regarding the claim that Abrego Garcia was not a gang member, Bondi said in an interview that "We have to rely on what ICE says. We have to rely on what Homeland Security says." White House Senior Director of Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka suggested that opposing Abrego Garcia's deportation was illegal, asking if it was aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists.

The Trump administration also presented documents and press releases from the DHS that intended to show Abrego Garcia "as a [MS-13] gang member with a violent history". The documents included information related to the 2019 arrest and immigration hearings, a copy of a civil restraining order against Abrego Garcia filed by his wife in 2021, and information related to a 2022 traffic stop. This was part of "aggressively building a case against the native Salvadoran designed to combat an onslaught of criticism from Democrats and intensifying scrutiny from the courts". The DOJ also released two documents from 2019 that allegedly tied him to the MS-13 criminal gang, including a detective's summary of statements from a confidential informant whom the detective described as a "past proven and reliable source of information".

In the restraining order, Abrego Garcia's wife accused him of "punching and scratching her, ripping her shirt, and leaving her bruised". The DHS said "Kilmar Abrego Garcia had a history of violence and was not the upstanding 'Maryland Man' the media has portrayed him as".

In response, Vasquez Sura said:

After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order in case things escalated. Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process. We were able to work through this situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling. Our marriage only grew stronger in the years that followed. No one is perfect, and no marriage is perfect. That is not a justification for ICE's action of abducting him and deporting him to a country where he was supposed to be protected from deportation. Kilmar has always been a loving partner and father, and I will continue to stand by him and demand justice for him.

The DHS did not redact Vasquez Sura's home address when it posted the copy of the restraining order, and she and her children subsequently moved into a safe house, as she was concerned that they were no longer safe living in their home.

On May 8, Kristi Noem testified before a Senate appropriations subcommittee that Abrego Garcia "should never have been in this country and will not be coming back to this country". When reminded that the Supreme Court required her to facilitate his return, she said that would be "up to the president of the El Salvador".

President Trump disclaimed responsibility. On April 17, asked if he would bring back Abrego Garcia, Trump said that he was "not involved in it ... you'll have to speak to the lawyers". In an April 22 interview, he repeated that he had left the decision to the DOJ. "I give them no instructions. ... I don't make that decision". He said that he had not asked Bukele to release Abrego Garcia because "I haven't been asked to ask him by my attorneys." In his April 29 interview with Moran, Trump again said "I'm not the one making this decision. We have lawyers that don't want to do this."

When Moran told Trump "in our country even bad guys get due process," he replied "If people come into our country illegally there's a different standard." Pressed with "but they get due process," he said "Well, they get a process where we have to get 'em out, yeah." On May 4, Trump was interviewed on Meet the Press by Kristen Welker, who revisited whether he had the power to bring Abrego Garcia back to the US. He responded that if he were "instructed by the attorney general that it's legal to do so", he could ask Bukele, but the decision was up to Bukele. When asked whether he agreed with the secretary of state that everyone deserves due process, regardless of whether they are citizens or non-citizens, Trump said that he did not know, as he was not a lawyer. Welker then noted that the Fifth Amendment says that everyone has due process rights, and asked "don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?", to which Trump again replied "I don't know."

Trump also wrote in an April 22 Truth Social post that "We cannot give everyone a trial", claiming that holding a trial for everyone the administration wishes to deport would take 200 years and was not possible. The Hill wrote that this appeared to partly be a response to critics arguing due process violations, particularly Abrego Garcia's. Miller said on May 9 that the administration was actively looking at suspending habeas corpus, the right to defend against arbitrary arrest and detention by challenging the legality of one's imprisonment in court. He said "a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not."

Roger Parloff of Lawfare argued that even in the legal cases, the Trump administration's primary goal is "political messaging".

False and misleading information

A number of news organizations have said that members of the Trump administration have lied and misrepresented facts and the law to the public regarding Abrego Garcia's deportation and detention.

The Austin American-Statesman found JD Vance's claim that Abrego Garcia was a "convicted MS-13 gang member" to be false because Garcia has neither been charged nor convicted of any crime.

The New Republic said that JD Vance lied in calling Abrego Garcia a gang member and insisting that he could not be returned to the US. Vance asked "Are you proposing that we invade El Salvador to retrieve a gang member with no legal right to be in our country? Where in the Supreme Court's decision does it require us to do that?" and musician and writer Mikel Jollet responded "No, the ruling states clearly that you are required to take steps to facilitate his return and update the court on your progress. You have plenty of tools at your disposal (diplomatic and otherwise) to do this without invading El Salvador." In another article, The New Republic said that the Trump administration was lying when it said that the United States could do nothing to effectuate the return of Abrego Garcia, as the United States has a "contractual arrangement under which we pay El Salvador about $6 million—or $20,000 per detainee per year", and "Like any other good customer, the United States can easily negotiate the adjustment."

PolitiFact found Trump "misleadingly glosses over critical details that tell a different story" and "omitted the central point that Abrego Garcia's family, legal team and advocates say is at issue: He was deported without due process". Stephen Miller tweeted that "The right of 'due process' is to protect citizens from their government, not to protect foreign trespassers from removal", adding that "an illegal alien facing deportation" does not have due process rights. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, responded that Miller was "lying", as the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "every person gets due process", and quoted former justice Antonin Scalia as substantiation: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings."

Tattoos

Administration, also said in his Senate confirmation head that these were associated with MS-13. Experts who spoke to BBC Verify disagreed. A White House spokesperson told PolitiFact that any law enforcement or immigration official with on-the-ground experience could link the tattooed symbols to MS-13. PolitiFact concluded that "Experts in MS-13 and other gangs say the pictorial tattoos shown are not typical designs for MS-13 or other gangs." In his July 23 ruling to release Abrego Garcia, Judge Crenshaw made note of the government's "poor attempts to tie Abrego to MS-13", in particular that there was no evidence for "markings or tattoos showing gang affiliation," which the New York Times described as directly undercutting the administration's statements.

The April 18 photo was digitally altered to add the characters "M" "S" "1" "3" above the symbols and one-word descriptions below. In an ABC News interview with Terry Moran that aired on April 29, Trump insisted that the characters themselves were tattooed on Abrego Garcia's knuckles, saying "He had 'M,' 'S' as clear as you can be" and "[He's] got 'MS-13' on his knuckles" and objected to Moran correcting him that those characters were photoshopped. Trump's Truth Social post also said in part "They said he is not a member of MS-13, even though he's got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles ..."

Homeland security secretary Kristi Noem said she did not have any knowledge of the photo when asked whether the photo was "doctored or not doctored" in a congressional hearing.

Legal implications regarding US citizens

In response to the government's argument that facilitating Abrego Garcia's return is beyond its scope of responsibility, as he is now in Salvadoran custody, US judges have noted that the legal issue is not limited to Abrego Garcia's deportation. In her April 5 opinion, US District Court Judge Xinis said:

[The defendants] cling to the stunning proposition that they can forcibly remove any person – migrant and U.S. citizen alike – to prisons outside the United States, and then baldly assert they have no way to effectuate return because they are no longer the "custodian", and the Court thus lacks jurisdiction. As a practical matter, the facts say otherwise.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held a similar opinion, noting that the administration's arguments, if taken to their ends, could lead to the deportation of citizens without any option for remedy. In its April 17 ruling that referenced Trump's comments suggesting doing so, the court wrote:

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor made a similar observation in her April 10 concurrence:

The Government's argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.

Analysis of media coverage

Allsides looked at the language used to describe the Abrego Garcia case by a variety of news organizations with different political leanings during the period from April 15 to April 18, especially in their headlines. It found that the language varied in several ways. In their headlines, news outlets they assessed as left-leaning were more likely to describe Abrego Garcia as a "Maryland man", outlets they assessed as centrist tended to omit a descriptor, and those they assessed as right-leaning were more likely to describe him in terms of gang affiliation or domestic violence. The language also varied in terms of whether he was or was not identified as a "migrant", with the outlets they assessed as right-leaning being more likely to identify him that way, and often noting that he had entered the country illegally, and those they identified as left-leaning being more likely to omit this. A third dimension along which the outlets varied was how they characterized the deportation: describing him as having been "mistakenly" deported in the body of the article by outlets they assessed as centrist, as an "administrative error" in a detail "buried" in the article for those they assessed as right-leaning, and as "wrongly" or "wrongfully" deported by those they assessed as left-leaning.

Reactions

The US government's acknowledgment of the deportation error has sparked significant legal and political debate, raising concerns about the efficacy and fairness of US immigration laws and procedures. The Atlantic reports that the standard course for the government to deport someone with protected status would be to reopen the case and introduce new evidence arguing for deportation.

On April 15, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, Abrego Garcia's wife, pleaded for the return of her husband outside of the Maryland courthouse that was holding a status hearing on his case:

My family can't be robbed of another day without seeing Kilmar. This administration has already taken so much from my children, from his mother, brother, sisters and me. Kilmar, if you can hear me, stay strong. God hasn't forgotten about you. Our children are asking when will you come home. I pray for the day I tell them the time and date that you will return.

Members of Congress

Politico reported that Abrego Garcia's deportation has become a political flashpoint, with Democratic lawmakers viewing the administration's refusal to return him despite the Supreme Court ruling as the constitutional crisis they've been warning of, and Republicans, with the support of the administration, seeking to move away from the litigation to make the issue about illegal immigration, an issue they believe is to their favor.

Several congressional Democrats called for Abrego Garcia's release. Representative Adriano Espaillat of New York said in a press conference that he would write to the president of El Salvador to formally ask for Abrego Garcia's release and to know his condition, and that he hoped to visit the Terrorism Confinement Center. He noted that Abrego Garcia had been jailed without the presentation of any criminal charges in either the United States or in El Salvador.

Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland connected Abrego Garcia to deportations under Trump more broadly, speaking of "people being disappeared" in America, including visiting students and legal immigrants.

In anticipation of President Bukele's visit to the US, Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas called for Bukele to be held accountable for the imprisonment of Abrego Garcia and others in what Castro called "gulags" and "torture prisons".

On April 14, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said that the administration was required by law to provide the committee with "any written agreements made with the Salvadoran government on this issue", and requested immediate compliance with the law.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is composed of Democrats, has also called for Abrego Garcia's release.

Republican congressman Jason Smith toured CECOT, as did Republican Congressman Riley Moore, who was photographed giving a double thumbs-up in front of a cell of prisoners. When asked about the issue at a town hall with constituents on April 15, Republican senator Chuck Grassley said:

Well, it's not a question of the president following the court order. It's a question of is the president of El Salvador going to do what our Supreme Court wants done? And obviously our Supreme Court doesn't have any control over him, and he says he's not going to return him. So if there's a constitutional crisis, it's not being caused by President Trump, it's being caused by the president of El Salvador. I would expect our president to act in good faith, and I think our president will do that, of making those requests of the president of El Salvador, but whether or not, but how the president of El Salvador responds would be up to that president of El Salvador.

Republican House Majority Whip Tom Emmer said in an interview that Abrego Garcia did have due process, in the form of the asylum hearing where his application was rejected. Pressed on the 2019 hearing that granted Abrego Garcia the ability to stay in the US, and his protection order not to be deported specifically to El Salvador, Emmer dodged. He disclaimed US responsibility for "a citizen of El Salvador who is now in El Salvador".

Republican senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said, "The administration won't admit it. But this was a screw-up".

State officials

Democratic governor of Illinois JB Pritzker took steps to have his state boycott El Salvador over Abrego Garcia's imprisonment, directing various Illinois pension funds to review whether they have investments in companies based in the country, and the Department of Central Management Services to review whether the state has granted procurement contracts to companies based in or controlled by El Salvador. He declared that due process was guaranteed in the US Constitution, and Trump's eroding of fundamental Constitutional rights had to be fought to restore the balance of power. In response to Trump's remarks to President Bukele that "Home-growns are next" and that Bukele needed to build more prisons, Pritzker warned that "if they get away with it now, they'll do it to anyone."

Democratic governor of Maryland Wes Moore condemned the deportation on the grounds of inadequate due process.

Trade unions

Abrego Garcia's deportation resulted in significant public activism from both his local union, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) Local 100, and the SMART International Union. SMART general president Michael Coleman said the following in response to his deportation:

In his pursuit of the life promised by the American dream, Brother Kilmar was literally helping to build this great country. What did he get in return? Arrest and deportation to a nation whose prisons face outcry from human rights organizations. SMART condemns his treatment in the strongest possible terms, and we demand his rightful return.

Grassroots organizations

The Maryland-based immigrant services and advocacy organization CASA has been deeply involved in advocating for Abrego Garcia's return to the US. Abrego Garcia is a member of CASA. The organization has mobilized community support, organized rallies, launched petitions, and facilitated meetings between Garcia's family and lawmakers. CASA's legal team has also played a direct role in the litigation, with one of its advocates serving as co-counsel for Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura.

Media commentators

In the April 14 segment of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart commented on Bukele's visit with Trump earlier in the day, where the presidents had spoken about Abrego Garcia remaining at CECOT rather than being returned to the US:

Can I honestly tell you? Like, they're fucking enjoying this, like the two of them: our president, their president, [they're like], "I can't do it. I guess we'll just have to let him rot in fucking prison, even though he didn't deserve to be there." I know [Trump and Bukele] don't care about this guy but somebody else cares about this person, and you just randomly, with no evidence that you'll show anybody, call him a terrorist.

Andrea Pitzer, journalist and author of a history of concentration camps, wrote on New York magazine's Intelligencer website that CECOT is a concentration camp, akin to the Soviet Gulag and the early Nazi concentration camps (as distinct from the extermination camps). Her criteria were detaining civilians en masse without due process on basis of race, ethnicity, or supposed affiliation, as opposed to crimes; political ends to gather and keep power; typically open-ended detention so that a prison sentence, if any, may be honored or it may not; and an end run around the legal system, allowing detention not otherwise possible. Pitzer argued that Bukele's, and now Trump's, use of CECOT in their security theater met all of these criteria. She warned that those who open concentration camps seldom close them willingly; instead, extrajudicial detention can linger for decades and tends to expand its role, just as Auschwitz was a regular concentration camp for years before Birkenau was built, and Guantanamo Bay was an immigration detention facility to prevent refugees from getting asylum on American soil decades before it became a site for torture and indefinite detention.

In an opinion column for the Chicago Tribune, Elizabeth Shackelford similarly wrote that CECOT is not a prison but a concentration camp, since prisons hold people lawfully convicted of crimes and serving sentences, whereas concentration camps are intended to confine people "without legal justification or limits" and "to break men's spirits and instill fear outside its walls." She pointed out that authoritarians often "hone tools of oppression against unpopular populations" before using them against whoever they want, and argued that Trump's attack on due process is a threat that the Founding Fathers recognized, analogizing the case to one of the items they listed as a grievance against King George III in the US Declaration of Independence: "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses".

After Trump agreed in an interview that he could call Bukele and ask him to release Abrego Garcia, Greg Sargent, an opinion columnist for The New Republic, wrote that the statement "destroys" the Trump administration's argument that it cannot "compel Bukele to release him because it would intrude on Salvadoran sovereignty to dictate that country's treatment of one of its own", in that a request would not intrude on sovereignty. Sargent also commented on Trump's response to a question about why he was not acting in accordance with the Supreme Court's April 10 order that the administration facilitate Abrego Garcia's return: "I'm not the one making this decision. We have lawyers that don't want to do this." Sargent said that this implies Trump is either "knowingly violating the Supreme Court and hiding behind his lawyers to do so", or the DOJ is "deceiving him about what the high court has ordered—revealing he's weak and subject to manipulation."

Media Matters for America argued that "right-wing media personalities" and news sources have often downplayed or rejected Abrego Garcia's due process rights.

Academics

Historian Timothy Snyder described the case as the "beginning of an American policy of state terror" against those living in the US. Snyder argued that this is a test of whether Americans will stand for the rule of law, both individually and by demanding that Congress do likewise.

Legal scholar Ryan Goodman and counterterrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn noted that the Trump administration acknowledged violating a judge's withholding of removal order, and that both the district court and the circuit court of appeals have ruled that the administration violated Abrego Garcia's right to due process. Goodman and Joscelyn added that not only is the administration "openly flouting" the Supreme Court's order that it facilitate Abrego Garcia's release, but the administration claims that it cannot do so, and even mocks the idea of his return. They argued that despite the government's efforts to focus the public's attention on Abrego Garcia's alleged ties to MS-13, the case "is about the rule of law, not allegations about Abrego Garcia's gang membership", especially "the Trump administration's defiance of the courts and denial of due process – a most basic constitutional right."

In response to the Trump administration's brief to the Supreme Court, where the solicitor general argued that no court can order the administration to seek Abrego Garcia's return, legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurence Tribe wrote that it "is using this case to establish a truly chilling proposition: that no one can stop the Trump administration from imprisoning any people it wants anywhere else in the world", and called that both "lawless" and "frightening".

Public opinion

In a New York Times / Sienna College poll of registered voters in April 2025, 52% disapproved of Trump's handling of the case, compared to 31% who approved. In a Washington Post / ABC News / Ipsos poll of US adults published the same day, 42% thought that the government should bring Abrego Garcia back to the US, 26% thought that he should remain imprisoned in El Salvador, and 31% said that they did not know enough to answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia