Ábrego García will be deported again if released from jail before trial, says DoJ attorney
The disclosure by US lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the justice department and the White House, who said last month that Ábrego García would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him.
Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Ábrego García's wife, a US citizen, is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him from being expelled again.
Guynn said US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Ábrego García once he's released from jail and send him to a 'third country' that isn't his native El Salvador. However, Guynn said he didn't know which country that would be.
Paula Xinis, a US district judge, said trying to determine what will happen to Ábrego García has been 'like trying to nail Jello to a wall'. She scheduled a hearing for Thursday for US officials to explain possible next steps if Ábrego García is released.
Ábrego García's case became a flashpoint over Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious mega prison in his native El Salvador. The Trump administration claimed he was in the MS-13 gang, although Ábrego García was never charged with a crime and has repeatedly denied the allegation.
In recent court filings, Ábrego García's lawyers wrote that he had been tortured while being held at the so-called Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot) in El Salvador. He and 20 other men 'were forced to kneel from approximately 9:00 PM to 6:00 AM' according to the filing, and Ábrego García was beaten and threatened.
When the Trump administration deported Ábrego García, it violated a US immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded him from being sent to his native country. The judge had determined that Ábrego García likely faced persecution by local gangs that had terrorized him and his family and prompted him to flee to the US.
For months, the Trump administration said that it had no ability to bring back Ábrego García or any of the more than 200 men that the government had sent to Cecot. 'DHS does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation,' the Department of Homeland Security's general counsel said in one court filing.
However, in a new filing Monday, officials from El Salvador told the United Nations 'the jurisdiction and legal responsibility' for the men that the US deported to Cecot – most of whom were Venezuelan nationals with no ties to El Salvador, and no criminal records – lies 'exclusively with' the US.
Facing increasing pressure and a supreme court order, the Trump administration returned Ábrego García to the US last month to face federal human smuggling charges. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Ábrego García was driving a vehicle with nine passengers without luggage.
Ábrego García has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers told a judge that some government witnesses cooperated to get favors regarding their immigration status or criminal charges they were facing.
They've also accused the Trump administration of bringing Ábrego García back 'to convict him in the court of public opinion' with the intention of deporting him before he can defend himself at trial.
A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Ábrego García, determining he's not a flight risk or a danger. But she agreed to keep Ábrego García behind bars at the request of his own attorneys, who raised concerns the US would try to immediately deport him.
In court documents, Ábrego García's lawyers cited 'contradictory statements' by the Trump administration. For example, Guynn told Xinis on 26 June that Ice planned to deport Ábrego García, though he didn't say when.
Later that day, justice department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told the Associated Press that it intends to try Ábrego García on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, posted on X that day that Ábrego García 'will face the full force of the American justice system – including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed'.
Ábrego García's attorneys asked Xinis to order the government to take him to Maryland upon his release from jail, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Ábrego García lived in Maryland for more than a decade, working in construction and raising a family.
Xinis is still considering that request. Guynn told the judge on Monday that she doesn't have the jurisdiction to decide where Ábrego García would be detained. Xinis responded by asking why she couldn't order an 'interim step' to ensure that Ábrego García isn't 'spirited away again'.
Andrew Rossman, an attorney for Ábrego García, said he should be given notice and an opportunity to challenge his removal in court.
'That's the baseline of what we're asking for,' he added.
Meanwhile, Xinis denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss the lawsuit over Ábrego García's mistaken deportation.
The government had argued the litigation was moot because it returned him to the US. Xinis said 'the controversy' isn't over simply because he's back.
Maanvi Singh contributed reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
No writer can explain Trump – and it's fuelling a useless genre
Could the 2024 election have gone differently? Or was the United States always fated to re-embrace its rococo leader? That's the question posed in 2024, the latest in a long line of books that promise to illuminate last year's confusing and chaotic US election – one that started with a Democrat candidate refusing to cede to a fresher face, and ended with the least fresh face of them all moving back into the White House. Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager, and Isaac Arnsdorf – reporters for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, respectively – have assembled their sources to retell the campaign from start to finish. Their book is structured around a series of what-ifs, moments in which the political wind might have changed course, and consequentially so. What if Ron DeSantis had gathered more support and donations and beaten, or at least threatened, Trump in the primary? What if the Democrats had been beaten in the 2022 midterm elections? This approach feels remarkably similar to the Democrats' coping strategy during the first Trump administration. With each setback or accusation lodged against Trump – Russiagate, impeachment hearings, his diagnosis with Covid – a pleading wish emerged: 'Is this going to be the thing that finally takes him down?' (It was the same, after his administration, with the sexual assault allegations, the indictments, the felony verdicts…) No controversy seemed to ever stick or even slow him down considerably. So, in 2024, we get retreads of those familiar what-ifs: Dawsey, Pager, and Arnsdorf dig into the accusation that Trump was hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, as well as rumours about his manoeuvres against rivals such as DeSantis and Nikki Haley; they also explore Biden's indecision about running in 2024, which the Democrats so grossly mishandled. And yet instead of explaining the backstory of such what-ifs, mostly we only get useless details – ones that seemingly signal just how many people these award-winning journalists have spoken to, rather than providing any real insight. We hear about the time Trump's senior adviser Chris LaCivita mistakenly bought a woman's coat for himself while on the campaign trail, as well as the time when he had his picture taken holding a cigarette, in front of a hotel's 'No Smoking' sign. Without such necessary context, the book also misses opportunities to clear up misinformation – particularly with the attempt to assassinate Trump in July last year. We might have heard about the security failures that allowed Thomas Crooks – a figure who remains obscure, because the authors dig up no new information about him – to go unobserved that day. All we get is an anecdote about Trump's eccentric request for a head CT, because 'it's like an IQ test. They tell you that your brain is good, so I just want to have that.' (At the least, the book can be quite funny.) Some of the book's revelations have also been broken already, by other books in this relentless genre. Details about the efforts to hide Biden's decline in health will be wearingly familiar to readers of Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper's Original Sin, which made headlines in May and does a more substantial job of reporting on the election. But there's little new on that cover-up here. The book is cluttered with such filler. But the skimpiness of context most shows through with the authors' account of October 7. The authors are, impressively, the first to take the war's effect on the election seriously. Gaza was never a marginal issue, as some like to claim – and the authors convincingly argue how it affected the Democrats' ability to recruit grassroots volunteers and to motivate the reluctant youth vote. But they leave the war as a problem that rocked the campaign rather than analyse responses to it. There's an interesting story to be told here about how the US has gone from harbouring widespread, casual Islamophobia post 9/11, to ambivalence towards what felt like never-ending wars in the Middle East, to increased support, in the past few years, for the Palestinian cause. The prominence of universities, changing perspectives on American imperialism and the exhaustion of a generation of soldiers have all changed attitudes towards Israel-Palestine relations considerably – though you would never know this reading 2024. That lack of analysis means the subtitle – 'How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America' – vastly over-promises. I'm not sure the authors know. With little analysis and scattered attention, the reading experience of 2024 resembles that of scrolling through headlines, opinion pieces and faulty polling. It wasn't a fun experience last year, and I can't say I would recommend it here either. ★★☆☆☆
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Stock markets shrug off tariff letters after Trump says August 1 tariff deadline ‘not 100% firm'
Update: Date: 2025-07-08T06:11:27.000Z Title: Donald Trump's new tariff rates Content: If you missed it last night, here are the new tariffs which Donald Trump announced in a flurry of letters to world leaders: Goods from Bangladesh: 35% US tariff Bosnia and Herzegovina: 30% Cambodia: 36% Indonesia: 32% Japan: 25% Kazakhstan: 25% Laos: 40% Malaysia: 25% Myanmar: 40% Serbia: 35% South Africa: 30% South Korea: 25% Thailand: 36% Tunisia: 25% Reminder: These rates will be charged on imports into the US from these countries, and paid by the importer. Update: Date: 2025-07-08T06:09:01.000Z Title: Introduction: Asia-Pacific shrug off new Trump tariff threats Content: Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of business, the financial markets and the world economy. The TACO trade is back! Many Asia-Pacific stock markets are rising today, despite Donald Trump's decision to ramp up his trade war by announcing new tariffs on 14 US trading partners. There's relief that Trump has announced a new pause before these new levies kick in – a new three-week reprieve kicks the can down the road to 1 August, rather than tomorrow. This delay will give countries to negotiate trade deals with the US. Asked if 1 August deadline was firm, Trump indicated it wasn't exactly concrete, saying last night: 'I would say firm, but not 100% firm. If they call up and they say we'd like to do something a different way, we're going to be open to that.' That has encouraged traders to conclude that Trump Always Chickens Out (TACO). So while there were losses on Wall Street last night after the first tariff letters were released, markets across Asia are taking the news in their stride. In Tokyo, the Nikkei 2225 has risen by 0.3%, up 118 points to 39,705 points, even though Japan has been threatened with a new 25% tariff from 1 August (slightly higher than the 24% rate announced back in April, before Trump's 90-day pause which expires tomorrow). South Korea's KOSPI has gained nearly 2%, even though Seoul has also received a letter announcing a new 25% tariff. China's CSI300 index has climbed by 0.8%. European markets are expected to open flat. More letters are expected to be sent later this week. Stephen Innes, managing partner at SPI Asset Management, says traders are pricing in 'delay, maybe even dysfunction', rather than a resolution of the trade war. But that's enough to keep them bidding. Innes writes: Markets didn't lurch because they've seen this show before. Tariff hike, rhetoric spikes, and then—like clockwork—comes the sudden pivot: 'We're still open to talks.' This is policy by poker tell. And by now, investors are familiar enough with the bluff to call it and fade the fear. However…Ipek Ozkardeskaya, senior analyst at Swissquote Bank, fears there is too much 'unexplained optimism', adding: The deadline extension is not good news, per se. It simply adds to the uncertainty. It's yet another sign that the deadline won't be a line in the sand, and that tariffs set in the coming days and weeks won't be carved in stone, either. They will be constantly changed — raised, lowered — and used as a go-to threat in every situation. 9.30am BST: UK's Office for Budget Responsibility to release its latest Fiscal risks and sustainability report 10am BST: Marks & Spencer chair Archie Norman to face business and trade committee to discuss M&S's cyber attack 11am BST: Office for Budget Responsibility press conference 12pm BST: Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry to release Volume 1 of its Final Report
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ted Cruz rejects claims that weather service cuts led to loss of life in Texas floods
Senator Ted Cruz has rejected claims that reductions to the National Weather Service contributed to the 89 deaths from the Texas floods. Speaking on Monday, Cruz described as "cynical" any immediate attempts to blame cuts made to the weather service during the Trump administration. He suggested that while a review of what "could have been done better" might be appropriate later, it is not the right approach during a crisis. Experts had previously cautioned that the decision to dismiss about 600 staff from the agency could negatively affect its ability to provide accurate forecasts. Watch the video in full above.
