WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 15, 2025) — A federal judge has intensified scrutiny of the Trump administration’s handling of immigration enforcement by ordering senior U.S. officials to testify and provide documents under oath regarding the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man removed from the U.S. to El Salvador in violation of a court order.
At a hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis expressed frustration over what she described as the government’s lack of transparency and action, noting that despite her prior directive to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, there has been no substantive effort made to comply.
“There will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding,” Xinis declared. “To date, what the record shows is that nothing has been done. Nothing.”
Xinis directed that four officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — all of whom previously submitted sworn declarations — must sit for depositions by April 23. This move marks a significant escalation in the judge’s efforts to assess whether the administration actively defied a judicial mandate.
Government attorney Drew Ensign stated the officials may invoke attorney-client privilege during their depositions. However, he also claimed the government interpreted the judge’s order to mean that it merely had to remove any U.S. barriers to Abrego Garcia’s return, not actively coordinate his repatriation.
That interpretation was swiftly rejected by Judge Xinis:
“That is not the plain meaning of ‘facilitate,’” she said, criticizing what she saw as an intentional misreading of the court’s order.
Abrego Garcia was deported on March 15, despite a standing judicial order blocking his removal to El Salvador. His forced deportation — followed by his detention at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a notorious facility housing criminal suspects — has drawn sharp criticism from legal advocates and renewed concerns over Trump-era immigration tactics.
His case has become a flashpoint in broader allegations that the Trump administration is testing the limits of judicial authority, particularly in immigration enforcement.
Xinis had previously required the government to provide daily updates on efforts to comply with her order. As of this week’s hearing, no such meaningful updates were delivered.
The hearing came just one day after a controversial White House meeting between President Donald Trump, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In remarks afterward, Bukele stated that he did not have the authority to repatriate Abrego Garcia.
Rubio echoed Trump’s long-standing stance that U.S. foreign policy is the domain of the Executive Branch, asserting that courts should not dictate diplomatic actions.
Judge Xinis, however, made it clear that while she was not yet ordering the administration to demand Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador, she found the refusal to do so “stunning.”
“I’m not ordering you to do that,” she said. “I don’t know if I’ll ever be there.”
Outside the courthouse, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, Abrego Garcia’s wife, made a public plea to both the Trump and Bukele administrations.
“I find myself pleading with the Trump administration and the Bukele administration to stop playing political games with the life of Kilmar,” she said to demonstrators gathered in support.
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) also weighed in, announcing plans to travel to El Salvador on Wednesday to personally check on Abrego Garcia’s health and wellbeing and engage in diplomatic discussions regarding his potential return.
This case is part of a pattern under Trump’s renewed presidency in which the administration is aggressively pursuing deportations, often invoking obscure legal authorities. Abrego Garcia, along with hundreds of Venezuelan migrants, was deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law historically used during times of war. Multiple courts have since blocked further deportations under that statute.
Separately, judges have temporarily halted attempts to deport university students legally residing in the U.S. over their participation in pro-Palestinian protests, suggesting a legal reckoning is underway over the administration’s immigration strategy.
Earlier this week, Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi was arrested in Vermont while attending a citizenship interview — another example of what critics say is a coordinated crackdown on dissent and non-citizen residents.
With the U.S. Supreme Court recently upholding part of Xinis’ order — specifically the mandate to “facilitate” but not necessarily “effectuate” the return of Abrego Garcia — the case now hinges on the testimonies of DHS and ICE officials.
Judge Xinis has not ruled out holding the government in contempt of court, depending on the outcome of these depositions and additional evidence submitted.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond one man’s deportation, as it tests the limits of executive power, the independence of the judiciary, and the future of immigration policy under one of the most contentious presidencies in recent memory.
