Setting the Record Straight: Trump Did Not Defy Supreme Court in Deporting MS-13 Gang Member Kilmar Abrego García
The narrative spun by mainstream media outlets regarding the deportation of Kilmar Abrego García—a confirmed MS-13 gang affiliate and illegal alien—has become a flashpoint of misinformation and political distortion. Contrary to liberal outrage, President Trump did not defy a Supreme Court order, nor did his administration act outside the law in returning García to El Salvador, his country of origin.
Deportation Based on Lawful Grounds
In 2019, an immigration judge ruled that Abrego García was affiliated with MS-13, based on evidence provided by a confidential informant. His bond was denied, and his asylum request was rejected due to failure to file within one year of arrival—a clear requirement under U.S. immigration law.
Though he was granted withholding of removal, a temporary protection that bars deportation to a specific country (in this case, El Salvador), it did not confer a legal right to remain in the United States permanently, nor did it equate to citizenship or immunity from removal based on new findings. Withholding of removal is automatically void if an individual is determined to pose a security threat, as later occurred when MS-13 was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 2025.
No Criminal Conviction Required
While critics claim García had “no criminal conviction,” U.S. immigration law does not require a conviction to trigger deportation—gang affiliation alone is sufficient, particularly when national security is at stake.
Additionally, removal proceedings are civil in nature, not criminal, and therefore do not require a jury trial or indictment. García received due process in immigration court and was subject to lawful administrative removal procedures.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling: “Facilitate,” Not “Effectuate”
The Supreme Court’s April 10 ruling did not demand that the Trump administration return García to the United States. Rather, the unanimous decision stated that the government must “facilitate” his return following an internal admission that his deportation may have violated a prior court order.
But facilitation is not the same as enforcement. The U.S. cannot compel El Salvador to release one of its citizens—especially not someone classified as a terrorist under both Salvadoran and U.S. law.
President Nayib Bukele has refused to release García, stating unequivocally, “How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course I’m not going to do it.” Under Salvadoran law, individuals with verified gang ties are automatically imprisoned in the high-security CECOT facility, where García now resides.
Extradition Is Not an Option
The U.S.–El Salvador extradition treaty, dating back to 1911, applies solely to criminal prosecutions—not immigration violations. García has no active criminal charges pending in the U.S., which renders extradition impossible under Salvadoran law.
The “Maryland Man” Myth
Major media outlets have misleadingly labeled García as a “Maryland man,” a term typically reserved for American citizens. In truth, he is a Salvadoran national, illegally present in the U.S. since 2011. Residency does not equal citizenship—and conflating the two is deliberate manipulation aimed at evoking sympathy and obscuring facts.
Bukele’s Sovereign Authority Prevails
Despite judicial pressure from U.S. federal courts, El Salvador is a sovereign nation. President Bukele is under no obligation—legally or diplomatically—to release or transfer García back to the U.S., especially given the risk of national backlash for appearing to protect gang members.
Conclusion: No Defiance, Just Due Process and Diplomacy
The Trump administration’s actions were:
- Legally grounded in immigration law.
- Supported by judicial findings from prior proceedings.
- Constrained by international sovereignty, not defiance of court orders.
The real takeaway is that Trump’s America First approach prioritizes citizen safety, enforces immigration law, and refuses to bend to media sensationalism or foreign criminal interests.
The Supreme Court ruling was advisory in nature, not an order to override foreign policy. The U.S. facilitated what it could—and El Salvador lawfully refused.
That’s not defiance. That’s diplomacy. That’s sovereignty. That’s law.
