Brief summary
The Trump administration is facing legal and political setbacks in its efforts to deport individuals without due process. A new intelligence assessment contradicts the administration’s claim that a Venezuelan gang is directed by the Venezuelan government, undermining the rationale for deporting suspected gang members without due process. The administration has been accused of suppressing this intelligence report.
Courts have repeatedly ordered the administration to provide due process, but the administration appears to be rushing to deport more migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, in apparent defiance of these orders. The ACLU has filed an emergency motion seeking to block imminent deportations.
Main Body
The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father mistakenly deported to El Salvador, has become a flashpoint, with Democrats like Senator Chris Van Hollen advocating for due process. The administration is framing the issue as one of public safety, but critics argue this undermines core constitutional principles.
The battle between the administration and the courts over immigration and deportation policies continues, with the Supreme Court potentially needing to intervene again to uphold due process rights.
Donald Trump this afternoon suffering legal and political blows to his efforts to deport individuals without providing them due process. Brand new reporting from The Washington Post today undercuts one of the central rationales for withholding due process. It has to do with a comprehensive assessment made by the National Intelligence Council in conjunction with 18 intelligence agencies. It’s an assessment first reported on by The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Today, cites people familiar with the matter in reporting that the NIC earlier this month determined that the Venezuelan government is not directing an invasion of the United States by the Tren de Aragua gang. It is a judgment that contradicts not just what Donald Trump has said repeatedly in public, but what the Trump administration has used as reasoning for deporting suspected gang members without due process under the Alien Enemies Act. From that new post reporting, quote, the intelligence product found that although there are some low-level contacts between the Maduro government and Tren de Aragua or TJ, The gang does not operate at the direction of Venezuela’s leader. The product builds on U.S. intelligence findings in February, first reported by The New York Times, that the gang is not controlled by Venezuela. Now, before you ask, the answer is yes. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence conveniently dismissed these findings as a product of, quote, deep state actors and the media. Of course. All that relates to people the Trump administration is deporting on purpose intentionally. And that is an important distinction because there are also those being shipped to mega prisons in El Salvador by mistake. And we know that from the Trump administration’s own admission. Now, last night, Senator Chris Van Hollen posted this photo. It’s a photo of him visiting with Kilmar Abrego Garcia from that El Salvador prison. Senator Van Hollen said he’d called Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love. Hours later, she spoke with ABC.
We saw that Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, he flew to see your husband Wednesday. He released a photo of the two of them last night. What was it like for you to see that photo?
It was very overwhelming. The most important thing for me, my children. His mom, his brother, his sibling was to see him alive, and we saw him alive.
It was very overwhelming. What were you told your husband said in that meeting?
It was just a message of love.
Now, Senator Van Hollen is scheduled to touch down in Washington, D. C., from El Salvador any moment. He’s expected to address the media. We’ll bring that to you as soon as it gets underway. In the meantime, the new reporting, the new events are where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Washington Post national security reporter John Hudson is here; he is bylined on the reporting we just read from. Also joining us, former director of the CIA, now an MSNBC senior national security analyst, John Brennan’s here. Plus, Amanda Carpenter joins us. as a writer and editor and protect democracy. John, take me through what you and your colleagues are reporting.
Yeah, so it’s a very significant development that the National Intelligence Council, which derives. It’s information from the 18 U . S. intelligence agencies. And its assessment is that, no, Trend Aragua, this gang that operates across the Western Hemisphere, is not directed by the Venezuelan government. And it’s significant because, of course, this is the entire rationale that the Trump administration is using to round up suspected gang members in the United States and summarily deploy. Them without due process, there had been some inklings from the intelligence community earlier in February that were first reported by The New York Times, that this was the case. But the National Intelligence Council really building a more authoritative and sort of singular voice of the intelligence community saying, no what President Trump is saying and what the lawyers are saying: there’s no basis; this isn’t direction is happening from the Venezuelan government. Very significant, especially given that, you know, there are a lot of fears that the intelligence community is being sort of suppressed in some ways by political appointees who have a different agenda. This is a sign that actually the intelligence analysts are still doing their work and still calling balls and strikes when it comes to the reality on the ground.
What goes into this intelligence product? Can you just, for folks not familiar with an assessment and the degree of confidence and the number of agencies that contribute to the assessment, can you do some of that explaining for us?
Yes. So obviously, there’s 18 intelligence services that work for the United States, everything from the National Security Agency, which specializes in signals intelligence, the CIA, which does operations and has human intelligence, national geospatial agencies with satellites. And almost universally, the intelligence community found that this idea that the gang is operating at the behest of the Venezuelan government. It’s just not the case. There was a dissenting U. S. intelligence agency in the form of the FBI, which found that there is a moderate degree of coordination that happens between Tareck El Aissami and Venezuela, the Maduro regime. But that is not accepted by the rest of the intelligence community. But essentially, the National Intelligence Council’s got experts and advisors, and they pool the collective intelligence of the United States government. And so when they put products together like this, it’s very important. Of course, what their product was roundly rejected when I brought this up to the spokespeople of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which viewed the product or at least are reporting on the product as a result of deep state actors working in conjunction with The Washington Post.
John Hudson, do they have 18 separate government agencies that arrive at a different conclusion based on different sources and methods? of intelligence?
I mean, this is sort of the unified voice of the intelligence community when the NIC, as it’s called, the National Intelligence Council, puts out these products. Obviously, there is room for dissent, and that was the case with the FBI. But this was the consensus position of the U. S. intelligence community.
Director John Brennan, Just give us some historical parallels to the other sorts of things that were established with the consensus positions of 18 U. S. intelligence agencies. I mean, because my sense is when you have that much agreement, they tend to be noncontroversial conclusions that are accepted by policymakers.
Well, as John pointed out, the National Intelligence Council, the NIC, is a very authoritative body that pulls information as well as experts from throughout the intelligence community. For 50, 60 years or so, it has been responsible for producing the national intelligence estimates. You know, they were the ones that were doing things on the Soviet Union or China or terrorism, other types of things. And so it is an authoritative assessment that is done. And it goes out for coordination. And for 17 out of the 18 to agree fully with the findings, I think that is really quite. quite something. One dissent said there was moderate coordination between the Maduro government and Tren de Aragua. But again, I think the National Intelligence Council is the place you want to go to if you want to have a coordinated view of an ongoing situation. Find very surprising is the statement that came out from the Office of Director of National Intelligence saying it’s a result of deep state actors. I mean, this is going to not just annoy, but anger the members of the intelligence community, particularly those who work on the NIC, to think that they are being referred to by the Director of National Intelligence Office as deep state actors. These are professionals. These are people with deep expertise, regional expertise, and also, you know, long analytic experience. And so to refer to them as that, deep state actors, again, this is just disparagement of the intelligence community that works so hard to make sure that they’re able to bring to bear all of the intelligence analysis available so that the lie can be shown to Donald Trump’s fabrications.
Director Brennan, let me read you some NBC reporting and then ask you a question about this. NBC is reporting that the Trump administration appears to be hurrying to deport more alleged Venezuelan gang members under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, despite a Supreme Court order that detainees must be given reasonable time to combat the allegations against them. That’s according to a court filing obtained by NBC News. It would seem that knocking down an intelligence report that could enter into those courts’ proceedings and knock down the notion that there is any state-sponsored terrorism or crime would certainly suggest that the Trump administration will not prevail in court when and if they provide The candidates for deportation due process as they’ve been ordered by a nine to zero ruling to do by the United States Supreme Court. If you, if you reverse engineer this, do you feel like the suppression of the intelligence product which is the consensus of 17 agencies is part of their effort to deport people while denying them due process.
Absolutely. And it sounds as though some members of Congress have called for the declassification of the report so that it can be used expressly for this purpose to refute the allegations of the Trump administration. And this document, this assessment is going to carry a lot of weight. You know, policymakers can accept or ignore the findings of the intelligence community. But for Donald Trump basing his decision on the Alien Enemies Act and saying that there is this part of this invasion that was coordinated by Venezuela against us and showing that the intelligence community 17 of those 18 agencies deny that allegation I do think it’s going to carry a lot of weight and hopefully again lead to a bit of a change in terms of what is happening in this country.
President Trump losing again in court on this issue that has been roiling the Trump administration, its relationship with the judiciary, and the showdown with the Supreme Court. The news here, an appeals court rebuking President Trump and denying its bid to end migrants’ legal status while this appeal is underway. This involves Venezuelan migrants. Despite a string of court losses in these immigration and deportation issues. The Trump administration continues to press on many ways with its agenda and at times in apparent defiance of these court orders, which, as we’ve reported, could put pressure on the Supreme Court to act again. They’re preparing reportedly to deport even more migrants under the wartime powers that they’ve seized, the Alien Enemies Act. Politico reports migrants were actually loaded onto buses today, this afternoon. And there were buses seen arriving at an ICE detention facility. You see it there on the zoom in. So even amidst these court rulings against Trump, there are signs that they may be pressing on. And so that brings us here on this Friday night to an ACLU emergency motion. We’ve reported on how these different cases work and how the pressure sometimes does push back on the administration. Indeed, Donald Trump himself softening some of his language, if not his actions yet in this area. So this new request, the breaking news I’m telling you about, is seeking an immediate emergency hearing and ruling. On what you just saw, whether what they believe to be buses full of these individuals set for deportation should not be hurried out of the country as others have been, and instead given at least a month’s notice for the due process rights, which of course matter. For any human in the United States, whether you are an American citizen who might think this won’t happen to you, but it could, or whether you are a legal resident accused of something else, or in some cases, the undocumented and others who might be legally removed. I’m going to read from this new Friday night filing. Plaintiffs, this is the folks affected by this who are being advocated for by the ACLU, learned. That the Trump administration has, quote, been giving notices of removal in class members in English only, which don’t say how much time they have to contest their removal or even how to do so. In other words, the allegation being not the real due process, which the Supreme Court just said is required and, frankly, is a longstanding precedent. The filing I’m reading to you that’s breaking news goes on to say that officers last night told class members, that’s just a reference to the affected parties here, these individuals, that they’ll be removed within a day. And that expires as early as this afternoon. And upon information and belief, individuals have already been loaded onto buses. Again, that legal terminology there on information and belief is, in an emergency context, they might not have all the evidence or all the pictures and videos. But the lawyers are saying, we think this is happening. And they’re asking this judge to say no. And that’s against a backdrop where there is evidence and allegations that the Trump administration has already defied this and other judges in these related cases. So this emergency hearing is being held. In this hour, sometimes our breaking news is something happening in this moment. Sometimes it’s something that’s been happening over the course of the afternoon. In this case, part of this breaking story has happened. We have the information, the reporting from Politico on the buses. And part of this breaking news, quite frankly, begins in about 12 minutes. It is going to happen in this emergency hearing. The stakes are high. The pressure is on because the administration is all but clearly seeking a confrontation on these issues. That’s why the Attorney General didn’t say, as we reported, she didn’t say, ‘Well, we’ll see what we can do’ or ‘We’ll give it time.’ She said after the Supreme Court asked for the facilitation of the return of Garcia in that other case, she just said he’s not coming back. Also breaking news tonight, the ACLU is asking the Supreme Court to block the imminent deportations under these wartime powers. Meanwhile, there are further pieces of evidence. It’s not conclusive because we haven’t had a full due process hearings, but evidence that cuts against the administration’s claims. For example, intelligence suggesting there isn’t coordination between the gang here that has been alleged to be the invasion in some of these cases, Trend de Aragua, and the Venezuelan government. Now, that is an alleged link that was discussed as the legal claimed basis for the wartime powers. In other words, the Trump administration said, ‘hey, we think this is a gang working with a country.’ We’re treating it as a wartime invasion. Now, the factual predicate for that is potentially crumbling before our eyes, at least according to this U. S. intelligence assessment, as reported by the Associated Press. On the other hand, I can tell you the Trump administration, in court, continues to insist that they have these powers and they believe they’ll be vindicated once it’s fully argued before the Supreme Court. The tensions are high. The Trump administration continues, as I mentioned, to use the Garcia case to show the Supreme Court who they think is boss, that they think they can get away with this. Now, this may not be the issue that the Trump administration initially thought. Indeed, if you wanted to test wartime powers, you might want to test them in a case where, and these cases do exist, by the way, where there are individuals who have been proven to be violent or dangerous or who have voluminous criminal records in one or more countries. And yet this is a case where they literally sent Garcia to the wrong foreign prison. The Maryland father has now become a subject of both national and international intrigue. And people appear to care. There have been days of protests in different parts of the country. Some people saying this is all about human rights. They care about him. Others making the broader point that we’ve seen judges, including Republican-appointed judges, make that. Even if more negative information were to come out about this individual, even if he were moved to some other country other than the U. S., without due process, no one is safe. Now, we’ve talked about what the Democrats can do. They don’t control foreign policy out of the Congress. They have oversight. But when it comes to certain foreign policy and immigration powers, it’s up to the president, even when the president is clashing with the courts about how far they can go. But that doesn’t mean, through the oversight power I mentioned, that the Democrats have nothing to do or say. And so rather than just holding a hearing or issuing statements, we’ve seen a different type of engagement and leadership from one Democratic senator, Chris Van Hollen, who went down there not knowing whether he could meet with Garcia, who’s up against basically two governments, the executive branch of the United States and El Salvador. But here, from Senator Van Hollen’s office, you see the photo they’ve released. They sent out this photo of the meeting they got only because the senator pushed on against the no’s and against, basically, like I said, two governments to at least check on the well-being of an individual who the Trump administration admits they mistakenly sent to this prison and who Senator Van Hollen counts as a constituent, which is still meaningful in the United States system of democracy and government. Van Hollen has just returned to the United States, as you may have heard this afternoon. And after this shuttle diplomacy, he spoke out to journalists.
He was traumatized by being at Seacott. His conversation with me was the first communication he’d had with anybody outside of prison since he was abducted. If you deny the constitutional rights of one man, You threaten the constitutional rights and due process for everyone else.
This president, who is responsible for these policies, also seems aware that he may have to back down, as he did with tariffs, that he may have to retreat, that the Supreme Court may push him farther than that initial facilitate ruling. And so I want you to notice how both things can be true. He is responsible, and no honest reporter can observe this and sort of edit out the administration’s leader, Donald Trump, but he also now seems to be softening in case he has to back down further. Take a listen to the new language of a president watching this tough battle.
Well, I’m not involved in it. I’m going to respond by saying you’ll have to speak to the lawyers, the DOJ. I’ve heard many things about him, and we’ll have to find out what the truth is.
Yes, we will have to find out what the truth is. That is not the sound, though, of a president or a politician doubling down on some fight that he thinks is going well and confident that he’ll win and spiking the football. That is someone who now wants to at least lay down a marker that he’s not involved and talk to the lawyers and this is somebody else’s idea. Fact-check, the President is involved and the DOJ is arguing his cases, some of which are so extreme on these immigration matters different lawyers. They ousted the lawyer, Erez Reuveni, who didn’t argue exactly the extremes that they wanted. So we know that’s coming from Donald Trump’s policies. He is involved. But now he wants to say, and maybe it’s an olive branch in his mind of the Supreme Court to say, there’s a way out of this. A Reagan appointee and appeals court judge has warned that the president now risks lawlessness, the perception that that’s what he is running at the dawn within the first 100 days of this administration. The courts also have raised concerns about all of this and whether due process will be upheld or not, and that means the Supreme Court may have to do more. We’re also learning, and I mentioned this moments ago, and now I’m going to show you what happens when we get U.S. Citizens ensnared in policies that the Trump administration claims are only for migrants or gang members, and yet if they don’t afford due process, we have no way to confirm any of that. This is a U. S. citizen, American-born. Reports from The Guardian that they were then detained by ICE in Florida under a state-federal coordinated effort because they were allegedly falsely accused by the Trump administration of being here illegally. Again, in court, this individual provided reportedly a birth certificate for proof and a Social Security number. Guardian reports that we haven’t independently confirmed it. This is a 20-year-old detained now for two days before being released. So 48 hours in prison as an American citizen for something that apparently, according to The Guardian, wasn’t true. A state prosecutor claimed the court didn’t have jurisdiction over release because the federal authorities, that’s Trump’s officials, wanted him detained. Now, under public pressure and this reporting, we can show you he’s been reunited with his mother after Thursday’s release. And you can just imagine this is, and I say this quite literally, this is Trump’s America. An American citizen snatched up for two days despite a court hearing where a birth certificate showing citizenship was offered, re-embracing their parent, thankful that they weren’t further sent to a foreign prison like others when there have been these mistakes. You cannot have a constitutional democracy if one politician, one president, can do these types of things without due process, flout the rule of law, and very materially take, imprison, and banish human beings.
Joining us now, NBC News White House correspondent Von Hilliard, Christy Greenberg, a former federal prosecutor who was an MSNBC legal analyst, former Democratic congresswoman Susan Wild from Pennsylvania, and Brendan Buck, former press secretary for speakers Boehner and Ryan. He is also an MSNBC political analyst. Vaughn, what is the White House saying this morning as a response to what Senator Van Hollen was able to do with this meeting with Abrego Garcia?
Right. Since these overnight images came out, the administration, the White House, have been very clear in what they are trying to set up these images coming out of El Salvador to look like. Number one, that this is a White House that is defending Americans from migrant crime. And that, in a social media post by the official White House account, sets up the contrast that they’re trying to articulate. In one image, you see Van Hollen there with Abrego Garcia, who the administration can continue to label as an MS-13 gang member. We should note he has not been charged or convicted of any crime. And he was given a withhold deportation order, which allowed him to stay in the state of Maryland for the last six years. But then that other photo is the mother of Rachel Morin, who is at the White House in the Oval Office with President Trump. She was murdered by a migrant in 2023. And so in so many ways, as we have watched Democratic senators, including Chris Van Hollen, make the case that they are fighting for answers and transparency in a judicial review process that would lead to a court determining whether he can be rightfully deported or not. The administration, this White House and other Republican allies have tried to make this a different fight. And that is on the basis that any undocumented individual in the country is set to be deported and that allegations of being a gang member effectively are within the prerogative of the administration to lead to the deportation in order to keep Americans in the streets safe.
Brendan, what do you make of how the White House is framing this issue so far?
Yeah, obviously they’re having to answer some questions they don’t have great answers for, but it’s hard to look at this and not think that they’re enjoying this fight to a certain degree. And certainly some people in the White House think this is a great fight for them to have. Vaughn laid out the contrast they want to have about how they are handling immigration, but also just the fact that we are talking about immigration. You know what this actually reminds me of is during the campaign when they accused immigrants in Ohio of eating cats and dogs. They were obviously attacked in a lot of spaces for those baseless allegations, but it brought the conversation to a topic where they feel really comfortable and it’s where Donald Trump is strongest. Frankly, politically, I don’t know that he’s really paid a price for any of this. If you look at polling, he is still stronger on immigration. And there is a story on the economy that he doesn’t want to talk about right now. So it’s very helpful for them to have this dust up. But even on the substance.
Yeah. Yeah. Susan, I’m sorry about that. But I’m Susan. It seems that there are two different ways that Democrats are handling this. We see the senator Van Hollen in El Salvador looking for answers. Meanwhile, California Governor Gavin Newsom called it the distraction of the day. How do you see it?
Well, I would agree that the Trump administration is trying to use it as a distraction from the economy, that’s for sure. But I think Senator Van Hollen is doing exactly what Democrats need to be doing, showing action, showing that he not only cares, but that he is using his elected position to get something done. And simply by going down there and waiting, because if you recall, initially he wasn’t allowed to see Garcia and he waited until he could. I’m not sure what happened in the interim, but obviously he prevailed. And we’ve now seen that Garcia is alive in that staged photo by the El Salvadoran government. I don’t think they were drinking margaritas, that’s for damn sure. And I think that he did exactly what people are looking for from Democrats right now.
Yeah, you know, I just I mean, I guess all these photos are staged photos, right? I mean, they’re they’re they’re clearly aware that these photos are being taken. Either they were released by the president of El Salvador or these other this photo, which was released by the President, but also by Van Hollen. And I was wondering, Susan. And it’s interesting you said because there’s action and you’re talking about action, him physically being there. He’s not part of a CODEL. So there is no official, I guess, meetings planned or coordinated. But it seems as if there was something that changed so that the president of El Salvador would decide to release Abrego Garcia, even if it’s just for that one moment where they were having whatever they were having. Something changed there.
And I haven’t read anything to explain what changed. I suspect that the president of El Salvador took a page out of the Trump playbook and decided that he could make a great photo op. You know, there’s Garcia dressed in clothing that clearly he is not wearing in prison, and decided to take advantage of the situation, I suppose, because otherwise Senator Van Hollen would have either stayed there or come back and been all over the news talking about the lack of cooperation from the government there. But mostly, I just have to say, I implore the media not to allow a distraction with just constant talk by the you know, the administration loves its buzzwords. Immigration is the one right now. Trans was a big one not too long ago. They are trying to distract from a failing economy and the fact that they are deporting people in violation of the law. The president is using the Alien Enemies Act as the basis for doing this. We are not at war. And the only way the Alien Enemies Act is supposed to be invoked to deport aliens from a country that we are at war with. That is not the case. And it is clearly illegal action by the administration. No doubt.
And the fact that, you know, the Trump administration included in that Saturday evening executive order when they invoked that alien act mentioned that MS-13 and Trenderagua were, I guess, para-governmental. Right. Groups that were at war with the United States. It’s a it’s a very interesting reading of that.
13 is his other buzzword. Correct. 13. There’s no evidence of.
And Christy, meanwhile, let’s bore a little bit into the whole legal front aspect. Two courts told the Trump administration that they need to take a more active approach in facilitating Garcia’s return and provide details about their actions in doing so. What recourse, Christy, do courts have if the White House ignores us?
So Judge Wilkinson in the Fourth Circuit came out with a blistering order yesterday that really addresses this very point. And what he what he said is, look. You, the government, you’ve admitted here in the Abrego Garcia case that you made a mistake by deporting this man to El Salvador. You are doing nothing about it. And you can’t do nothing. You can’t just say we’re going to remove domestic barriers to his return should he decide to just show up. No, you actually have options to facilitate his release from custody. And you have to do something about it. Supreme Court ordered you to facilitate his release. And what you’re actually doing is facilitating his foreign detention. And so Judge Wilkinson said, look, this is. An assault on the courts and you really at this point have the opportunity to show that the rule of law matters; you have an opportunity to make this right, and the issue is, if they don’t really what Judge Wilkinson says. Here’s what you know: this would really be an assault on the courts that would mean the death of the rule of law; it would really just have such incredible implications for our separation of powers, our whole system of justice. He said, ‘If they can do this, if they can do this to this one man, who’s next?’ He said, ‘Political enemies, American citizens. Anyone is next if they can openly defy this order.’ So I think this is being set up in the lower courts in the Abrego Garcia case. We have two weeks of discovery that are happening really to get to the heart of if they’re doing anything. Right now, we’ve seen they’ve done nothing. And if the answer remains after this two weeks that they continue to do nothing, I think you are setting this up for contempt, which is what you’ve also seen in the other court, in the Alien Enemies Act case before Judge Boasberg. He’s already made a call; probable cause finding that there is contempt. And now there is additional discovery in that case, declarations, a potential hearing to, again, understand who is making the decisions, who didn’t turn those flights around when he made the clear order to do so. And again, if there is a contempt finding in either of these cases, which seems like where we’re headed, that could be serious. That could mean. If it’s civil, that could mean fines. That could mean fines that compound. That could mean sanctions. That could mean discipline for the lawyers. That could even mean jail. So we’re really set up here. I think both judges that are addressing these issues really understand their importance here, that we’re really at a crossroads where will the administration continue to just openly flout court orders? That is the issue here.
Garrett, let’s start with you at the White House, because they’re leaning into the politics of this case, trying to paint a contrast with Democrats on immigration, when this is really now a question of due process. Court of public opinion, though, is far from the same as the court of law.
Yeah, I think that’s exactly right, Ali. And the White House is all in on the political side of it. On the legal side of it, their argument’s pretty narrow. They say they are doing their best to comply. They understand what the court’s order is. But, aw, shucks, this man, Obrego Garcia, is in El Salvador now. He’s out of our jurisdiction. You heard there from the president of El Salvador saying he’s staying. There’s nothing we can do. Politically speaking, they are telling the courts and their critics essentially to pound sand that they believe the president is on firm political footing here. His immigration and deportation policies are broadly popular in the polling or the areas in which he actually polls the strongest, according to CNBC’s most recent polling across these different issue sets. And they’re going to stand firm and argue that they are trying to keep the public safe. That was the message that Tom Homan gave on this network this morning.
I think we removed the bad guy from this country who was down at home in the custody of his country. And his country has to make the decision to release him. We think we made the right steps and we took the bad guy and removed him from the United States and now he’s home.
Ali, whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a good guy or a bad guy is obviously secondary to the legal argument. But the White House wants to win the broader public political argument and essentially dare the courts to enforce their order somehow, some way. That’s where things stand here today.
Yeah, and we’ve certainly seen them ramping up on that front, Garrett. But Chuck, on this battle between the White House and the courts, the appeals court judge in the Abrego Garcia case yesterday said, quote, ‘We yet cling to the hope that it is not naive to believe our good brethren in the executive branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.’ Effectively, you guys believe in the courts and the law, right? But all signs point to the high court once again here. So how do you think that the Supreme Court will handle this if and when they get it? it again.
Yeah, you know, and Ali, I naively perhaps cling to that same hope. We are a nation of laws. Rule of law is embedded in our culture and in our society, and ignoring it is at all of our peril. And if I could just touch on something Garrett said, it doesn’t matter if this gentleman is a good guy, a bad guy, or the worst guy ever. The notion is that we afford due process to people. We adjudicate in a court before a judge: right whether or not we’ve met the burden of proving that they did what we alleged them to do and if he’s the worst guy ever we should all want as Americans that he get that same due process. What does the Supreme Court do with this? I don’t know, but it seems plausible to me although not definite that the last word may have come from the Fourth Circuit, the very opinion you just cited. They were quite clear on what this individual is entitled to receive, and he ought to receive it in a court of law in the United States. And if it turns out that he is the worst guy ever and or deportable or should be in prison because he committed a crime, so be it. This is not about him per se. It is about adhering to our processes and due processes embedded in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. We ought to adhere to it.
Yeah, this is yet about the larger principle, as you point out. But Chuck, is there any precedent for what the Justice Department should be doing in this case?
Well, you know, Ali, it’s a good question. So let me answer that at a high level. There is some precedent. When I was a federal prosecutor, I had on my desk a quotation from a Supreme Court case, Berger v. United States, decided in 1935, which made plain in an eloquent passage from Justice Sutherland that the obligation of a United States attorney, or in this case, the Justice Department, is not simply to win, but to do justice; that we, in effect, win if justice is done. And so that is the obligation of the Department of Justice all the time, always, in civil cases and in immigration cases and in criminal cases. We are not an ordinary party to litigation. We are different. And as a representative of the sovereign, the Department of Justice has to ensure that justice is done. That may sound quaint or antiquated, but it’s something that I firmly believe in.
And should be foundational here. But turning back to the politics, Tyler, Democrats are seemingly divided on how much attention they should give to this case when separately and simultaneously you’ve got the Trump tariffs hitting the economy, consumers nervous, the market skittish. But that’s falling out of the headlines somewhat, in large part because of the focus on this. What’s the right move here if there is one for Democrats?
Yeah, I think Democratic leaders are trying to figure that out, and we’re seeing, as with both parties in all cases, there’s a divide of exactly how to handle this issue and talk about it. There is some scar tissue within the Democratic Party on the issue of immigration, feeling that Democrats have often been on their back foot when it comes to explaining their work on the border and more broadly their position on immigration. The Democratic Party has a much more diverse set of views on immigration than the Republican Party does for the most part. And so that leads to some of these divisions over how to discuss and talk about these issues. And Democrats have felt that they have been playing defense on the issue for quite a while, quite some time, and has led to Republican gains, particularly as it relates to communities of color and Latino voters in the South and in the Southwest. I think one of the things that Democrats are trying to make clear is that this is bigger than an individual man. As Chuck and Garrett have said, this is about due process and the court of law. But it has been a challenge for some Democrats to fully explain that to the American people because it is complicated, and most Americans are not familiar with legalese. But we have seen the Trump administration put a full press on the politics of this situation, trying to draw a clear contrast between their focus on protecting the border and Democrats’ insistence on trying to free this one man. And I think that’s one of the challenges that Democrats face is messaging against the Trump administration on what is a nuanced issue that the Trump administration has largely stripped it of that nuance.
Yeah, that’s exactly right. The Trump administration or the Trump campaigns before it have always done well at basic broad branding, while Democrats are trying to, on nuanced issues like these, thread that needle. And they worry, especially critics of Democrats, including other Democrats, worry they’ve missed the forest from the trees on this and other issues. But Kim, let’s talk about a separate case that’s also happening right now. Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia student now being held at a Louisiana detention facility, says the Trump administration is targeting him because of his pro-Palestinian activism. They’ve also said that. Unlike a Rego Garcia, he is a legal permanent resident and is still facing deportation. But he wrote an op-ed today where I thought he distilled this moment so clearly as it applies to both his case, but also the other cases going through right now, which is just the simple question of who has the right to have rights?
Yes. And I think in this way, and to also address the previous question about how we talk about this, Democrats, Americans, this case, as well as the Khalil, as well as the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, this isn’t about immigration policy. Democrats can say we need secure borders, but we need a better system of dealing with the immigration crisis that is happening in the United States. Detained and/ or deported in a way that clearly violates the letter and the principle of our Constitution. If they want to find a way to really encapsulate what’s happening, they can use the opinion that Judge Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit handed down, because what he said is, is this man dangerous? Perhaps, perhaps not. But what we do know is he was protected by an order keeping him from being shipped to El Salvador. And we can add to that, I can say in this case, we do know that someone was detained and Wistoff disappeared because of his speech, which violates the very heart of the First Amendment. And that is what we don’t do in America. If we do not draw a line here, then that nothing stops this administration from going after American citizens, which the president already says he wants to do. He wants to go after journalists like me. He wants to go after other people and deport them if they’re American citizens. I take him seriously and literally at that. And what Judge Wilkinson said, if we have a democracy, if we adhere, if we rise. The principles that the framers put set out in our Constitution, we must on no uncertain terms stand against that. The courts need to understand their power; yes, the administration has a broad power on immigration and foreign policy, but the courts have power too-and that is to adhere to the Constitution and say you can’t do what you want to do, administration, by any means. You have to follow the law.
Watching this battle play out in real time, we will continue, of course, following every turn of it. But for now, Garrett Haik, Tyler Pager, Chuck Rosenberg, and Kimberly Atkins-Store, thank you all for joining us.
FAQs
FAQ 1: Why Is the Trump Administration Using the Alien Enemies Act for Deportations?
Keywords: Alien Enemies Act, immigration due process, Tren de Aragua gang, ICE detention
The Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act—a 1798 law designed for wartime—to justify deporting suspected gang members like those linked to Tren de Aragua. However, a National Intelligence Council (NIC) report involving 18 U.S. agencies contradicts this rationale, finding “no evidence” of coordination between the gang and Venezuela’s government .
Key Controversies:
- Legal Basis Challenged: Critics argue the Act applies only during declared wars (none exist with Venezuela).
- Intelligence Dispute: The NIC report undermines claims of “state-sponsored invasion,” with FBI dissent dismissed as “deep state actors” by Trump officials.
- ICE Detention Tactics: Over 1,200 migrants were reportedly detained without due process in April 2024, per.
FAQ 2: What Happened in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case?
Keywords: wrongful deportation, El Salvador prison, ACLU lawsuit, Supreme Court due process
Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint after being mistakenly deported to El Salvador and imprisoned. Key developments:
- Judicial Rebuke: A 4th Circuit Court judge accused the administration of “assaulting the rule of law” by ignoring orders to repatriate Garcia .
- ACLU Emergency Motion: Filed after ICE allegedly loaded deportees onto buses without English-language notices or appeal options.
- Political Fallout: Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) visited Garcia in prison, highlighting bipartisan concerns over ICE detention errors.
Impact: This case tests whether “due process applies to non-citizens”—a precedent that could affect 11 million undocumented immigrants.
FAQ 3: How Are Courts Responding to Immigration Policy Challenges?
Keywords: Supreme Court rulings, Fourth Circuit Court, contempt of court, immigration oversight
The judiciary has clashed sharply with the Trump administration:
- Contempt Threats: Federal judges in D.C. and Virginia are investigating potential contempt charges for defying deportation injunctions.
- Landmark Rulings:
• Van Hollen v. DHS (2024): Ordered ICE to disclose criteria for labeling migrants “gang affiliates.”
• ACLU v. Trump (2024): Blocked mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act pending Supreme Court review. - Supreme Court Showdown: Legal experts predict SCOTUS will rule by June 2024 on whether the Act’s wartime powers apply .
Quote: “If they can ignore due process for one, no American is safe.” – Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, 4th Circuit Court
