El Salvador's President Refuses To Return Wrongfully Deported Man

In a tense meeting at the White House on April 14, 2025, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele firmly rejected the idea of returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling mandating his return. Bukele referred to Abrego Garcia as a "terrorist," asserting that he lacked the power to send him back to the United States.

Abrego Garcia, who had been living in the U.S. under a protected legal status, was deported last month due to what the Trump administration has admitted was an administrative error. The Supreme Court's recent ruling upheld a lower court's order requiring the government to facilitate his return, highlighting the complexities surrounding immigration enforcement and international relations.

During the Oval Office meeting, Bukele stated, "The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?" This comment underscored the growing tensions between the U.S. and El Salvador regarding immigration policy. Bukele's administration has been a key ally in the Trump administration's aggressive deportation strategies, which have included the acceptance of over 200 Venezuelan immigrants into El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, present at the meeting, reiterated the administration's stance that while they would facilitate Abrego Garcia's return if El Salvador agreed, they have no legal obligation to do so. "He was illegally in our country," Bondi said, emphasizing that the U.S. government does not dictate El Salvador's actions regarding its citizens.

Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has been vocal about Abrego Garcia's case, requesting a meeting with Bukele during his visit to Washington. Van Hollen expressed frustration at the Trump administration's failure to comply with court orders regarding Abrego Garcia's return, stating, "Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia never should have been abducted and illegally deported, and the courts have made clear: the administration must bring him home, now."

The Supreme Court's ruling on April 10, 2025, was significant, as it upheld U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis's order for the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. However, the ruling also complicated matters by questioning the clarity of the judge's directive, prompting further legal deliberation.

Abrego Garcia's legal team has argued that he should not have been deported, given that a judge had previously found he had a credible fear of persecution in El Salvador. His case has garnered attention not only for its legal implications but also for the broader issues of immigration and human rights.

Despite the Supreme Court's order, the Trump administration has indicated that it views the return of Abrego Garcia as a low priority. In a court filing, government lawyers stated that they are only required to remove domestic obstacles to his return, not to engage in diplomacy with El Salvador.

During the Oval Office meeting, Trump praised Bukele's efforts to combat gang violence in El Salvador, describing him as a "fantastic partner" in the U.S. administration's deportation efforts. The meeting also highlighted the administration's ongoing negotiations with other countries regarding the deportation of immigrants deemed dangerous.

As tensions rise over Abrego Garcia's situation, the administration's approach to immigration continues to face scrutiny. Critics argue that the government's actions reflect a broader pattern of defiance against judicial authority, with some legal experts suggesting that the administration's reluctance to comply with court orders poses a threat to the rule of law.

In a statement following the Supreme Court's ruling, civil rights advocates expressed concern about the implications of the government's stance. Patrick Jaicomo, a civil rights litigator, remarked, "The government's arguments against returning Abrego Garcia should make your blood run cold. The government claims if it can ship a person to a foreign jurisdiction, they're gone. There's no limiting principle. It can make these arguments for intentional renditions of U.S. citizens."

As the legal battle continues, Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, where he has reportedly faced harsh conditions. His family in Maryland is anxiously awaiting news about his fate, while lawmakers like Van Hollen push for accountability and the enforcement of judicial rulings.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the Trump administration is expected to face increasing pressure to comply with court mandates regarding Abrego Garcia's return. The complexity of immigration law, combined with the political implications of deportation policies, makes this case emblematic of the broader challenges facing the U.S. immigration system.

As discussions about Abrego Garcia's case unfold, the future of U.S.-El Salvador relations remains uncertain. Bukele's refusal to return Abrego Garcia, coupled with the Trump administration's legal maneuvers, suggests that this saga is far from over. The coming weeks will likely see further developments as advocates for Abrego Garcia continue to fight for his return to the United States.