- A federal judge ordered four Trump-era officials to testify under oath about their role in the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Despite multiple court rulings, the administration has not taken steps to bring him back from El Salvador.
- Judge Paula Xinis said officials failed to explain the inaction and may face contempt if they do not comply.
- The administration argued it could not override foreign policy limits, while advocates and lawmakers pushed for Abrego Garcia’s return.
Full Story
A federal judge ordered sworn testimony from Trump administration officials to determine whether they have complied with multiple court rulings directing them to help return a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
Why did the US deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia?
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador on March 15, despite a 2019 court order forbidding his removal. Federal officials later called the deportation an administrative mistake.
Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, lived in the U.S. for about 14 years, worked as a metal laborer and raised three children with disabilities. He has no criminal record and has denied accusations that he is part of the MS-13 gang.
What has the court ordered?
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland directed the Trump administration in early April to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. The Supreme Court backed that order and ordered officials to treat the case as though the deportation never occurred.
Despite the rulings, the administration has not taken steps to bring Abrego Garcia back. Officials said they do not have the authority to retrieve him from another country, arguing that the president controls foreign affairs.
How has the judge responded?
Judge Xinis said Tuesday, April 15, officials have failed to provide a clear reason for their inaction. She ordered depositions from four officials across U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department. She also requested documents outlining any steps taken to comply with her directive. If the administration fails to comply, Xinis said Abrego Garcia’s lawyers could pursue contempt proceedings or sanctions.
Xinis also pushed back on remarks made during a recent White House meeting, where President Donald Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele discussed the case. Bukele compared returning Abrego Garcia to smuggling a terrorist into the United States — a claim Xinis said does not override legal responsibilities.
What is the administration’s position?
The Trump administration argued that courts cannot interfere with the president’s diplomatic powers. Administration officials told the court that they would allow Abrego Garcia to reenter the U.S. if he arrived at a port of entry but would take him into custody and could deport him again.
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt called Abrego Garcia a terrorist and defended the original removal, despite court findings that the government acted unlawfully and presented no credible evidence. The White House has not asked El Salvador to release him.
What comes next?
Xinis expects sworn depositions and evidence submissions to be completed by April 23. She asked for daily status updates on the administration’s efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.
Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and their children continue to advocate for his return.
Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen plans to travel to El Salvador this week to check on Abrego Garcia’s condition and speak with officials.
