Contrasting media perceptions of Abrego Garcia: Bias Breakdown

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported from Maryland to El Salvador, has become the center of a highly polarized media storm. It has also led to a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

His case has been portrayed in starkly different ways, with left-leaning media outlets referring to him as a “Maryland man” or “father.” In contrast, right-leaning outlets identified him as an “illegal alien” and “MS-13 suspect.”

Political narratives shaping public perception

Outlets on the left, like NPR and Axios, characterized Abrego Garcia as a wrongfully deported resident and family man. Conservative outlets, such as the New York Post and the Daily Wire, focused on allegations of gang affiliation and illegal entry.

• Axios: “Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador”
• NPR: “Judge demands to know if White House is helping return wrongly deported Maryland man”
• New York Post: “Alleged MS-13 gangbanger Kilmar Abrego Garcia suspected of human trafficking, feds say”
• Daily Wire: “Dem Senator Headed To El Salvador On Mission To Bring MS-13 Suspect Back To America”

The White House also joined the discourse and shared a social media post that altered a New York Times headline from “Wrongly deported Maryland man” to “MS-13 illegal alien who’s never coming back,” mirroring right-leaning terminology.

According to an analysis by media watchdog AllSides, the case was influenced by political leanings in the media. AllSides said some right sources “sensationalized headlines” when using language that emphasized Abrego Garcia’s alleged criminal background and immigration status.

On the other hand, AllSides added some left outlets “sought to portray him sympathetically,” highlighting Abrego Garcia’s role as a father and his legal struggle to remain in the U.S.

Allegations of gang affiliation

Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally in 2011, according to his own testimony, court documents showed. In 2019, he was arrested in Maryland alongside individuals identified by police as known gang members. Officers noted his attire — a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with images of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of presidents — as indicative of Hispanic gang culture. A source in the report deemed reliable by officers said Abrego Garcia was an active MS-13 member.​

Officers contacted a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is an active member of MS-13.”

Police Report

Some left-leaning outlets largely dismissed Abrego Garcia’s prior arrest — including the Bulls hat allegedly linking him to a gang—while right-leaning media highlighted the police report’s findings as evidence of gang affiliation.

Police did not charge Abrego Garcia in the incident. Instead, he was transferred to ICE custody, where Abrego Garcia sought asylum over fear for his life if deported back to El Salvador.

Bail denied over gang allegations

In April 2019, immigration judge Elizabeth Kessler denied Abrego Garcia’s bail while his asylum request played out.

Kessler wrote that “the determination that the respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet.”

“Although the court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the respondent’s clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ verified the respondent’s gang membership, rank and gang name is sufficient to support that the respondent is a gang member, and the respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion,” Kessler wrote.

Abrego Garcia asylum denied, granted a withholding of removal

A few months later, in October 2019, immigration judge David Jones denied Abrego Garcia’s asylum request.

Jones wrote that Abrego Garcia’s application for asylum came “seven years after his entry into the U.S. — well beyond the one-year filing deadline.”

The “application for asylum is time-barred and must be denied,” the judge wrote. Jones instead granted a “withholding of removal” for Abrego Garcia.

“He fears returning to his country because the Barrio 18 gang was targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family’s pupusa business,” Jones wrote.

The judge noted, “Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country, rather than the right to remain in the U.S.”

Abrego Garcia was released from custody and granted a work permit.

Appeal denied over MS-13 allegations

In December of that year, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Abrego Garcia’s attempt to appeal Kessler’s earlier ruling that his MS13 affiliation was likely. The appeals panel ruled: “The immigration judge appropriately considered allegations of gang affiliation against the respondent in determining that he has not demonstrated that he is not a danger to property or persons.” (Page 9-10 in the document below)

Wife’s temporary protection order

Fast-forward two years later, Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, filed a temporary protective order against him— shared by DHS on X— writing that Abrego Garcia hit her in the eye and with a work boot in 2020.

In 2021, she said, he punched and scratched her eye, causing her to bleed, ripped her shorts and shirt off, and detained her against her will.

“At this point, I am afraid to be close to him. I have multiple photos/videos of how violent he can be and all the bruises he has left me.”

Jennifer Vasquez Sura’s Protection Order

Vasquez Sura released a statement to the media following the resurfaced protective order. It said, “After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a protective order in case things escalated.”

“Kilmar has always been a loving partner and father, and I will continue to stand by him and demand justice for him,” Vasquez Sura said.

Abrego Garcia’s detention and deportation in error

On March 12, 2025, Abrego Garcia was detained by ICE during a traffic stop. Three days later, he was deported to El Salvador as part of three planes sent to the country’s high-security prison.

An ICE official wrote in a filing, “Through administrative error, Abrego-Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador. This was an oversight, and the removal was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego-Garcia’s purported membership in MS-13.”

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers sue over deportation

Abrego Garcia sued Trump’s DHS over his deportation. His lawyers wrote that the agency”…deported him to El Salvador without any legal process whatsoever, and in violation of an immigration judge order and a federal statute prohibiting them from doing so.”

Ongoing legal battle over ‘facilitate’ and ‘effectuate’

Judge Paula Xinis ruled DHS is “ordered to facilitate and effectuate the return of Abrego Garcia.”

After appeals of the ruling, the Supreme Court ruled the administration must “facilitate” his return but said the lower court may have overstepped in its demand to “effectuate” his return.

“The order properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the Supreme Court wrote. “The intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.”

Supreme Court Justices added that “the District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

The recent Supreme Court ruling sparked a heated legal debate between the Trump administration and Abrego Garcia’s legal team. Key differences centered around the interpretation of the terms “facilitate” and “effectuate.”

In an interview with Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi shared the DOJ’s perspective on the ruling.

“It was a win. What the court also said is these district judges do not have the right to interfere with the executive branch’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi

On the other side, Abrego Garcia’s legal team disagreed.

“The Supreme Court didn’t have any issue whatsoever. 9-0 unanimously agreed that the order to facilitate his return was absolutely proper and is in effect right now.”

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia’s attorney

The ongoing legal debate over the interpretation of a recent court ruling may soon lead the case back to the Supreme Court. This complex legal back-and-forth is fueling the growing partisan divide on the issue.

Partisan divides fuel public debate

Democratic lawmakers are currently in El Salvador demanding the release of Abrego Garcia following a visit from Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen. This sentiment has largely been echoed on left-leaning news networks, while right-leaning outlets shared a contrasting perspective. The debate centers on differing interpretations of the Supreme Court ruling: whether Trump is defying court orders or if his actions are within legal bounds.

Media bias shapes public perception

Media outlets reported on Abrego Garcia in various ways, with some watchdog groups arguing that the choice of language is intentional, aiming to shape public opinion. Descriptions such as “the Maryland man” versus “the alleged MS-13 gang member” highlighted how language can influence perceptions surrounding the case.

Unanswered questions loom

While political leaders from both sides of the aisle and partisan media outlets have drawn conclusions about the case, definitive answers are still lacking. The case may require further intervention from the Supreme Court.

A complex and convoluted case

This episode covered a long and convoluted case, spanning Abrego Garcia’s past legal issues, his immigration proceedings, and the legality of his deportation to El Salvador. We were unable to cover all the details, but we aimed to highlight the key facts that have become central to one of the biggest stories in the news cycle. The case’s portrayal by both left- and right-leaning outlets reveals how facts can be distorted to serve differing agendas.