Federal judge blasts Trump team over deportation plans
The Independent
The federal judge overseeing Kilmar Abrego Garcia's legal challenge over his arrest and removal from the United States is hauling Trump administration officials to court to get to the bottom of the government's plans for the wrongfully deported Salvadoran immigrant.
Abrego Garcia, whose case has been at the center of Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, is currently locked up in federal custody ahead of a trial on smuggling charges. If he's released from pretrial detention, immigration officials intend to arrest and deport him, again, before a trial even begins, according to the Department of Justice. After government lawyers and top Trump administration officials gave a series of conflicting statements about the fate of Abrego Garcia in recent weeks, District Judge Paula Xinis is ordering officials from the Department of Homeland Security to testify about their plans for his removal — answers that may reveal whether the criminal charges against him had anything to do with complying with court orders for his return.
She scheduled a hearing on July 7. Abrego Garcia could be released from federal custody and turned over to Homeland Security as soon as July 16. During a hearing in Maryland on Monday, Justice Department lawyer Jonathan Guynn said the administration doesn't intend to hold Abrego Garcia in "limbo" with Immigration and Customs Enforcement while waiting for his criminal trial.
"He will be removed, as would any other illegal alien in that process," he said. His remarks are the latest in a series of conflicting public statements from the administration after Abrego Garcia was abruptly returned to the United States from prisons in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia had been living in Maryland with his wife and child, both US citizens, along with two other children from a previous relationship, when he was arrested and deported to El Salvador on March 15 — what government lawyers admitted was an "administrative error" that defied an immigration judge's 2019 order preventing his removal.
But the administration spent weeks battling court orders from federal judges and the Supreme Court to "facilitate" his return, claiming that they were powerless to return him while administration officials publicly asserted he would never again step foot in the United States. Last month, he was flown back to face a criminal indictment accusing him of illegally transporting immigrants across the country. He has pleaded not guilty.
"Our plan is, he will be taken into ICE custody and removal proceedings will be initiated," Guynn said during a court hearing last week. But that same day, a spokesperson for the Justice Department told the Associated Press that the government will try Abrego Garcia on the charges against him before deporting him from the country. The White House also called the Justice Department's in-court statements "fake news." On Monday, Justice Department said they don't know where the government plans to deport him.
"It's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall trying to figure out what's going to happen," Judge Xinis said at one point on Monday. "For three months, your clients told the world they weren't going to do anything to bring him back," she said, pointing to statements from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the president himself.
'Am I really supposed to ignore all that?' she said.
She also said she finds it 'highly problematic' that the Justice Department can't seem to answer whether government lawyers knew about the criminal investigation against him while battling in court over his wrongful removal.
'This time, Judge Xinis was not willing to let government lawyers say, 'We don't really know,'' Abrego Garcia's attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg told reporters on Monday. "If they want to deport him to a third country, they need to name that country, and they need to describe the process by which they're going to give him due process," he said. The Supreme Court has paved the way for the Trump administration to deport immigrants to so-called third nations that aren't their home countries after a legal battle involving a group of deportees sent to war-torn South Sudan, where attorneys said the men face torture, abuse and death.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
4 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Indian Foreign Policy Under Narendra Modi Is In Shambles
By Prakash Karat The infamy that the Narendra Modi government's foreign policy has earned in the recent period, is something that cannot be understated. On June 13, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution moved by Spain calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution accused Israel of using 'starvation of civilians as a method of warfare'. Of the 193 member states, 149 voted for the resolution, 12 opposed while 19 abstained. India did not vote for the resolution, but abstained. This was the most shameful stance given that the urgency for a ceasefire was glaringly evident in the background of the continuing genocidal war by Israel on Gaza and the weapon of mass starvation inflicted on 2 million people. India's justification for the abstention vote was lame and deceitful – that 'durable peace can only emerge through direct negotiations'. Deceitful because it was Israel which had broken the last ceasefire and imposed a total blockade on all supplies into Gaza. The abstention in the vote was contrary to the stand India had taken six months ago, in December 2024, when a resolution calling for ceasefire in the UN General Assembly was adopted, in which India voted for the resolution. India and Timor-Leste were the only two Asian countries to abstain. All other Asian countries voted for the resolution, even staunch allies of the United States like Japan and South Korea. The Modi government has been emboldened to come out with a clearer pro-Israeli stance in the wake of President Trump's full support to Netanyahu's plan to obliterate the Palestinians. The Trump administration has also indicated that it does not support the two state solution anymore. The slavish attitude of aligning with Trump at all cost has led to the complete abandonment of India's principled support to the Palestinian cause and siding with the colonialist-genocidal policies of the Israeli regime. That the foreign policy has been mortgaged to the US-Israeli axis became evident once again when India distanced itself from the statement issued by the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), on June 14, which condemned the Israeli military attacks on Iran calling it a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. The Indian government was quick to announce that it was not consulted while issuing the statement. Even the fact that Iran is a fellow member of the SCO and was subjected to aggression did not weigh with the government. On its part, the Modi government did not criticise or condemn Israel's military aggression against Iran, a friendly country with whom India has a strategic partnership. This stand can be contrasted with the response of Japan which is a close ally of the United States and a member of the QUAD. The Japanese government strongly condemned the Israeli attack on Iran calling it a flagrant violation of international law and Iran's sovereignty. When the United States bombed the three nuclear installations in Iran on June 22, in blatant violation of all international laws and norms, India kept silent. Prime Minister Modi, in a telephone call to the Iranian President expressed concern and called for de-escalation. This was an advice to the victim of aggression, not to take any steps to defend oneself. In the BRICS Leaders Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Modi in his speech avoided any criticism of the Israeli attack on Iran and the U.S. bombing of its nuclear sites. But the joint statement issued by the Summit roundly condemned the aggression on Iran. Obviously, the ten other member countries of BRICS do not share India's views on the matter. The further rightward lurch in foreign policy stems from the eagerness to curry favour with President Trump and to appease his outrageous demands. The Quad Foreign Ministers' meeting held in Washington on July 1, came out with a sharper focus on China as a security threat and to counter its growing economic clout. India is bent upon ensuring that Trump attends the Quad Leaders' Summit to be held in Delhi, later this year. India has also to come to terms with Trump's demands on the trade and tariff front. Here again, the Modi government is unable to take a firm stand. All indications are that India was prepared to make major concessions to ensure that the interim trade deal is finalised before the July 9 deadline, when the 90 days pause in reciprocal tariffs announced by Trump is due to end. However, the negotiations held so far could not lead to a satisfactory conclusion. That India's foreign policy is in shambles has become clear in the post 'Operation Sindoor' period. Trump has succeeded in hyphenating India and Pakistan, and presenting the United States as the arbiter in India-Pakistan relations. At the root of the fiasco lies the Modi regime's determined pursuit to cement its junior partnership with the United States. A renewed ten year defence framework agreement is to be signed when the Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is to next meet his American counterpart. Already India had committed to buy U.S. military equipment on a large scale during Modi's visit to Washington in February. The U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, once again in June, expressed unhappiness about India buying weapons from Russia but added significantly that these concerns have been addressed and that 'India is starting to move towards buying military equipment from the United States'. What all this amounts to is a surrender of India's vital interests, whether it pertains to economic sovereignty, foreign policy or strategic autonomy. (IPA Service)
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
VIDEO: Liberians confused and angry after Trump's praise for their leader's English
Liberians reacted with a mix of anger and weary resignation on Thursday after discovering that the leader of their country's closest bilateral partner does not appear to know what language they speak. At a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump responded to brief remarks from his Liberian counterpart, Joseph Boakai, by marvelling at his "beautiful" English. But Trump did not stop there. "Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?" he continued, as Boakai murmured a response. "Where were you educated? Where? In Liberia?" English has been the west African nation's official language since the 1800s. Government statements are published in standard English while spoken Liberian English reflects influences from pidgin and indigenous languages used across the country of around 5.5 million people. Liberians sometimes refer to the US as their "big brother," but not everyone was surprised that Trump's knowledge of the country did not seem to reflect that closeness. Fatumata Binta Sall, a Liberian feminist activist who travels frequently to the US, told Reuters that Trump's amazement at Boakai's English fluency was all too familiar. "Many times, I've had Americans ask me whether I studied abroad or where I learned to speak 'so well'," she said. Such remarks, she said, indicate her country "isn't visible in the minds of many Americans." She attended international conferences "to remind the world that Liberia exists." William V.S. Tubman III, a Liberian writer and grandson of former President William Tubman, voiced frustration at what he described as Trump's lack of respect. "Praising an African head of state for speaking English 'so beautifully' isn't a compliment, it's a reflection of how deeply colonial thinking continues to shape expectations," he said. "What Trump said wasn't ignorance. It was disrespect and entitlement disguised as praise." Massad Boulos, Trump's senior adviser for Africa, said no one in the room was bothered by Trump's remark. "I was in the meeting and everyone was deeply appreciative of the President's time and effort," Boulos said in a statement. The White House shared a separate statement from Liberia's foreign minister, Sara Beysolow Nyanti, stressing that Boakai himself also took no offence. Liberian President Joseph Boakai greets relatives of slain officials in Monrovia, Liberia. File / Reuters "What President Trump heard distinctly was the American influence on our English in Liberia, and the Liberian president is not offended by that," she said. "We know that English has different accents and forms, and so him picking up the distinct intonation that has its roots in American English for us was just recognising a familiar English version." LIBERIA SCORES 'BIGLY' Some residents of the Liberian capital Monrovia also chose to highlight what they saw as the positive aspects of the visit. Boakai's inclusion on the guest list gave him an opportunity to tout Liberia's mineral assets and history of democratic elections. And his status as the only anglophone — in a group that also included leaders of Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Gabon and Mauritania — clearly made an impression on his host. "In terms of his grammar, the way that he spoke, I think it shows that Boakai has a solid foundation in his education in Liberia," radio journalist Augustus Caine said. A front-page story in The Analyst newspaper said Boakai had been "eloquently conveying Liberia's critical interests" and "attracting the host's admiration." The headline featured a rarely used English word that Trump himself was credited with reviving during his first run for the White House in 2016. "Trump's Invite of Liberia Scores 'Bigly," it read. Reuters
Middle East Eye
7 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil files $20m claim against Trump administration
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil has filed a claim against the Trump administration for $20m in damages after spending months in an immigration detention centre and missing the birth of his first child, the Associated Press reported on Thursday. The Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the State Department are all named on the claim, which is a precursor to a lawsuit. The Columbia University graduate, 30, who was one of the lead negotiators during the Columbia University protest encampments against the war in Gaza, is suing for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and being besmirched as an antisemite for his peaceful pro-Palestinian speech. Read more: Khalil spent 104 days in a detention centre after being detained by ICE agents in March
