A high-profile diplomatic and legal conflict has unfolded between the United States and El Salvador over the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man wrongfully removed from the U.S. despite legal protections. The case has drawn renewed scrutiny of the Trump administration’s use of controversial deportation practices under the Alien Enemies Act.
On April 16, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen arrived in El Salvador seeking to visit Abrego Garcia, who is currently imprisoned in a Salvadoran facility known for housing alleged gang members. Van Hollen, who has publicly advocated for Garcia’s release, was denied access by Salvadoran authorities. Vice President Felix Ulloa informed the senator that Garcia’s imprisonment was being funded by the United States and stated that the issue was out of their control.
The White House, through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, accused Van Hollen of “supporting an MS-13 member.” This assertion has been dismissed by Garcia’s lawyers, who state that he has no criminal background and was granted protection from deportation under U.S. asylum provisions. The U.S. Supreme Court had earlier recognized that Garcia’s deportation was a violation of court orders and directed his return to American soil. However, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s administration has refused to release Garcia, claiming jurisdictional sovereignty. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has also stated it does not have the power to retrieve him without Salvadoran cooperation.
Meanwhile, a separate court ruling has intensified legal pressure on the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found probable cause to hold several Trump-era officials in criminal contempt for defying his March 15 order prohibiting deportations of migrants accused of gang affiliations. Many of the deported individuals were denied the opportunity to challenge the accusations, which they claim are baseless. These deportations were carried out using the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798 that has rarely been used in modern times.
The judge pointed to public comments and social media posts by administration officials that appeared to ridicule the court’s authority. He ordered the administration to comply with the previous injunction by April 23 or to name those responsible for the violations. The Justice Department has filed an appeal, labeling the court's action an example of judicial overreach.
These twin developments have reignited debate over the legality and morality of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategies. Over 150 legal challenges have already been filed in relation to the use of expedited deportation procedures and executive resistance to judicial oversight. The coming days are likely to prove pivotal, as the administration must decide whether to comply with the court’s demands or escalate the legal standoff.
Observers say the situation not only affects individuals like Garcia, but also sets a crucial precedent regarding the limits of presidential power in immigration enforcement and the role of the judiciary in upholding due process.