Inside the Trump Administration's Controversial Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

An administrative mistake was undeniable.

The Trump administration deported Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, to a prison in El Salvador, despite a judicial order explicitly prohibiting his removal there.

Upon learning of this error, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was engulfed in days of confusion and internal conflict among officials from three separate agencies, debating how to handle the acknowledged mistake. When silence proved untenable, DHS officials proposed several tactics to manage the fallout, alarming Justice Department lawyers overseeing the case.

In the days before the government’s error became public, DHS officials considered portraying Abrego Garcia as a leader of the violent MS-13 gang, despite lacking evidence to support such claims. They explored ways to overturn the original deportation ban and downplayed the risks he faced in one of El Salvador’s notoriously dangerous prisons.

Ultimately, Erez Reuveni, a senior Justice Department attorney who advised returning Abrego Garcia to the United States, was dismissed amid accusations from Florida’s attorney general of failing to zealously defend U.S. interests.

Documents obtained by Multinational Times reveal the intense deliberations among top lawyers from the State, Justice, and Homeland Security departments as the government developed its response to a case that has become a pivotal test of the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies.

While the records do not show direct conversations within the White House or among cabinet secretaries, they demonstrate early efforts by administration officials to keep Abrego Garcia outside the reach of the U.S. judicial system.

Abrego Garcia remains detained in El Salvador despite court rulings mandating U.S. action to secure his release. His presence there stems from a bureaucratic oversight universally acknowledged by involved parties.

"It was an administrative error," James Percival, a DHS official appointed by the Trump administration, wrote to colleagues on March 30. "(Not something we should publicly admit)".

Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS spokesperson, stated the deportation was part of "a highly sensitive anti-terrorism operation with national security implications." She added that the department invoked state secrets privilege on many details, emphasizing that officials acted responsibly to protect public safety, while accusing leakers of disregarding public security.

Wider Implications

According to the documents, government officials quickly recognized the case’s broad consequences for Trump’s efforts to expel migrants to a large Salvadoran prison.

Reuveni warned that the case could jeopardize "many of the administration’s more significant initiatives." A legal defeat could have ramifications, especially for nearly 140 Venezuelans deported to the same facility under a rarely invoked wartime statute, the Foreign Enemies Act of 1798.

Eventually, three courts—including the Supreme Court—pushed back against the administration, ordering officials to at least take steps to free Abrego Garcia. Yet, the White House and some senior aides have maintained a defiant stance, insisting he will not be returned to the United States.

The confusion began on March 12, when immigration agents detained Abrego Garcia as he was returning home from work in Maryland, acting swiftly to fulfill one of Trump’s hallmark promises: the largest deportation operation in U.S. history.

Although Abrego Garcia faced deportation orders, a 2019 immigration judge had ruled he could be deported anywhere except El Salvador, his home country, due to threats to his life there.

Nonetheless, on March 15, the U.S. sent him to El Salvador on one of three charter flights carrying dozens of other migrants. While not deported under the Foreign Enemies Act, he was added last-minute after another individual was removed from the flight manifest.

On March 24, attorneys representing Abrego Garcia’s wife, U.S. citizen Jennifer Vasquez Sura, filed a lawsuit in the Maryland Federal District Court, requesting Judge Paula Xinis to order the White House to bring him back.

The lawsuit’s news was met with differing reactions between the Justice Department’s Immigration Litigation Office, which typically handles such cases, and DHS, which oversees Trump’s deportation policies.

Correspondence from March 27 to 31 between agencies and the State Department reveals a critical initial period culminating in the administration’s acknowledgment of the deportation error, triggering legal and political turmoil.

A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the documents, citing ongoing internal deliberations and litigation.

On March 28, DHS official Percival informed colleagues they were working to ensure Abrego Garcia would not return to the U.S.

"We are working to fix this so he doesn’t have to be returned to the United States," he wrote. Joseph Mazzara, DHS’s lead attorney appointed by Trump, agreed: "We are also trying to keep him where he is."

However, not everyone concurred.

Over several days, Reuveni, a Justice Department attorney with over a decade of experience, advised immediate return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

This was standard procedure; migrants wrongfully deported have been returned under both Republican and Democratic administrations, including Trump’s first term.

Reuveni’s key concern was that Judge Xinis would not favor the government retaining custody of someone unjustly deported abroad.

"I don’t think the court will look kindly on the suggestion that it’s acceptable to keep him there while we sort this out," he wrote. "The longer he remains there, the harder it will be to maintain that this is not our custody simply executed through Salvadorans."

DHS officials sought to resolve the issue by attempting to nullify the original order that should have prevented Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador, aiming to do so while he remained in Salvadoran custody.

Reuveni disagreed.

"How do we reopen his removal proceedings with him overseas?" he asked. "At that point, he won’t have a valid enforceable order."

"The cleanest solution," Reuveni said days earlier, was to bring Abrego Garcia back to U.S. soil.

Anticipating a Public Relations Battle

State Department officials sought further clarity.

One asked if there was any reason to refuse compliance if Judge Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia’s return.

"I can’t think of a basis for adopting a posture that we can ignore such an order, nor would we," Reuveni replied.

The government appeared on high alert for potential backlash from the error. Percival initially inquired whether the DHS spokesperson had been briefed on the "communication implications" of the case.

He soon realized hiding the truth was indefensible. One day after advising against public admission of the error, he reversed course, suggesting the Justice Department’s court response "would be much better if we could admit we made a mistake."

"But I suppose we have to find out if we’re allowed to say that..." he added.

Around the same time, DHS officials internally floated the notion that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 leader, a violent gang at the center of Trump’s deportation agenda.

If true, it might justify leaving him in El Salvador.

The problem was no one seemed to know if it was accurate.

At one point, Percival asked colleagues if they could tell Judge Xinis that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 leader. Reuveni said yes, but only if someone signed the allegation in a sworn court declaration.

Percival also wanted to assert that Abrego Garcia was not in immediate danger.

Eventually, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials retracted the claims.

"So far, I have found him listed as a 'verified member,'" an ICE lawyer wrote to Percival. "I have found nothing indicating 'leader,' but I will keep looking."

A Justice Department spokesperson stated that Abrego Garcia "was unlawfully in our country and has been identified as an MS-13 member, a foreign terrorist organization, by multiple officials including an immigration judge and an appeals board."

Abrego Garcia has never been charged or convicted of gang membership. He has stated he entered the U.S. illegally over a decade ago fleeing another gang, Barrio 18.

During his 2019 deportation proceedings, some evidence was presented suggesting MS-13 affiliation, but Judge Xinis questioned it, noting the "evidence" consisted only of his Chicago Bulls cap and hoodie and an uncorroborated informant’s vague allegation.

The 2019 immigration judge ruled Abrego Garcia should not be sent to El Salvador because the gang targeted him for death threats related to his family’s pupusa business.

The gang had threatened his older brother Cesar and then targeted Abrego Garcia after Cesar fled to the U.S. When Abrego Garcia refused to join Barrio 18, some members threatened to kill him, prompting his migration.

Due to the potential danger from Barrio 18 members inside El Salvador’s Terrorism Detention Center (CECOT), State Department official James L. Bischoff asked Justice and Homeland Security officials what advice to give the U.S. ambassador in San Salvador: should the ambassador request Salvadoran authorities isolate Abrego Garcia from gang inmates or seek his release?

Reuveni’s answer was clear: both.

"We should try to keep him away from gangs," he wrote, "but the most important and urgent priority is to bring him back."

Mazzara informed colleagues that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had taken steps to separate Abrego Garcia from other inmates, including Barrio 18 members. The next day, he said the administration was awaiting guarantees from El Salvador that Abrego Garcia was safe in prison.

Still, Mazzara remained unconvinced the gang posed a real threat.

"Is Barrio 18 even in CECOT?" he asked.

Two days earlier, Bischoff had informed Mazzara there were "many Barrio 18 members in CECOT."

"We Acknowledge the Facts"

Tensions between Reuveni and Homeland Security colleagues peaked during his April 4 hearing before Judge Xinis.

"We acknowledge the facts," he said immediately. "This person—the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia—should not have been deported. That is not in dispute."

He explained that while a final order allowed Abrego Garcia’s deportation, another order—a withholding of removal—was meant to ensure he would not be sent to El Salvador, where he could face persecution.

Xinis thanked him for his candor but had further questions. Abrego Garcia had lived in Maryland under withholding protection for nearly six years, so she asked what authority law enforcement used when detaining him on March 12.

"Your Honor, my answers to many of these questions will be frustrating," Reuveni responded. "I am also frustrated that I have no answers for many of your questions."

The Friday afternoon hearing ended with Xinis ordering the White House to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. by 11:59 p.m. the following Monday.

The order did not hold. The Supreme Court quickly intervened, first staying it and then ordering the government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody.

By that time, Reuveni had already lost his job.

On Saturday, April 5, the Justice Department leadership suspended and ultimately dismissed him.

"Under my direction, all Justice Department attorneys must zealously defend the interests of the United States," wrote Florida’s attorney general in a statement that day. "Any attorney who fails to comply with this directive will face consequences."

The case has proceeded without Reuveni, who declined to comment for this report. Judge Xinis has launched an inquiry into the White House’s compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.

Joseph A. Darrow, a former colleague of Reuveni who resigned from the immigration section last month, described the office as "shocked and demoralized" by the retaliation Reuveni faced.

Two other attorneys who worked with Reuveni have also left in recent weeks, citing his dismissal as a reason.

"I agree with what Joe wrote in his farewell email: it was an act of intimidation against all attorneys working here," said Erin Ryan, a litigation attorney who announced her resignation on May 16 via email.

"This matter put us in an impossible position where we had to choose between keeping this job by advancing a partisan agenda or upholding our ethical duty to the court and, therefore, our bar license."

"I choose the latter."