31 U.S. Senators demand return of Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador
In a letter
to U.S. Immigration and Customs, 31 U.S. senators, including Maryland Senator Van Hollen, demanded the return of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador on March 15, despite having a protective order granted in 2019 that prohibited his removal to the country due to risks of persecution.
Abrego Garcia was sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a notorious supermax prison. The deportation occurred after ICE agents apprehended him without due process while he was leaving work in Baltimore and picking up his special needs child.
Although Albrego Garcia has no criminal record in the U.S. or El Salvador,
Trump administration officials claim
he is an MS-13 gang member and a "danger to the community."
A federal judge ruled on April 4 that Abrego Garcia must be returned to the U.S. by April 7. However, the Trump administration appealed the decision, and Chief Justice Roberts
temporarily paused
the lower court's order on April 7.
In the five-page letter, the senators argue challenge the Trump administration's resistance to bringing Abrego Garcia home.
While the Trump administration admitted that Abrego Garcia's deportation was ultimately
the result of an "administrative error"
, the administration says jurisdictional and diplomatic limitations prevent the U.S. from compelling him to be released.
"Your unwillingness to immediately rectify this "administrative error" is unacceptable. Under multiple Democratic and Republican administrations, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE followed the rule of law and worked to quickly return people who were wrongfully deported, in the rare instances where such "administrative errors" occurred," the senators wrote in the letter. "The Administration's mass deportation agenda does not transcend immigration law or the need for due process."
In the letter, the senators also requested that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE respond to several questions regarding immigration enforcement.
The questions included:
The senators asked the department to respond to the questions by April 22.
The list of senators included Chris Van Hollen, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Cory Booker.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
Can Donald Trump run for president in 2028? Constitution sets two-term limit
President Trump has remained a divisive figure, prompting mass protests and receiving low approval ratings. Can he run again in 2028? Does he want to? Protesters in some cities took to the streets on June 22 after President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three nuclear facilities in Iran. It was far from the first protest against Trump's actions since he took office in January, and far more Americans have protested since the beginning of this year than during the same time frame in his first term in office or during President Joe Biden's first year in office. Trump is one of two presidents in U.S. history to serve nonconsecutive terms, and his approval ratings remain historically low. But back in the White House, he has toyed with the prospect of running for a third term, which is barred by the U.S. Constitution. Most recently, he said he was not considering it. Still, the Trump Organization sells "Trump 2028" hats. Here is what to know. What is Iran's next move? World awaits response to U.S. bombing: Live updates Can Donald Trump run for president in 2028? Under the Constitution as it stands, Donald Trump cannot be elected to a third term. It is explicitly barred by the 22nd Amendment. Changes to the Constitution are extremely difficult and rare, as they require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. States can also spur an amendment, but it requires two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a constitutional convention and three-fourths to ratify it. Trump won the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton, becoming the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He then lost the 2020 election against Biden. Trump won the 2024 election. At first, Trump was up for a rematch before Biden dropped his reelection bid and was replaced on the Democratic ticket by former Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump won the election, and his second term as the 47th U.S. president is slated for 2025 to 2029. What has Trump said about a potential third term? Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of a third term throughout his second presidency. In a March NBC interview, he said there are methods to make it happen, including if Vice President JD Vance runs for office and then hands the role to Trump. In a later interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that aired on May 4, Trump backed off the idea, saying he was not looking at running again. "I will say this. So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that," Trump said in the interview with NBC. "But it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else." The Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the "Trump 2028" hats. Only one president has served more than two terms America's founding father and first president, President George Washington, voluntarily stepped down after two terms, creating an unofficial tradition for future presidents to follow suit. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first and only president to break that tradition. The country was still recovering from the Great Depression, and at the dawn of World War II, he was re-elected to his third term. After leading the country through the global war, he was elected again in 1944, but died the following year. A movement in the House of Representatives to officially limit the presidency terms, now ratified as the 22nd Amendment, began two years after Roosevelt's death. Contributing: Riley Beggin, Deborah Barfield Berry, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @
USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
The U.S. helped oust an Iranian regime before. Here's what happened in 1953.
In the days following the U.S. strikes in Iran, President Donald Trump has threatened to depose Iran's leader and institute a regime change, igniting debates over interventionism and resurfacing memories of the last time America helped topple a government in Iran decades ago. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on June 22. Live updates: What is Iran's next move? World awaits response to U.S. bombing Trump's post came after officials in his administration, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, took much different tones, saying they were not working to overthrow Iran's government and do not want a regime change. As next steps remain unclear, the specter of American involvement in a plan to depose the Iranian regime raises immediate comparisons to Iran's 1953 coup, when American and British intelligence agencies aided in the forced removal of a democratically elected leader. While the current crisis is a far cry from the domestic and international events surrounding the 1953 coup, talk of regime change evokes memories of the U.S.-backed operation that had far-reaching effects in Iran and across the region more than 70 years ago. Here's what to know about what happened then. More: The risks for Trump of 'regime change' in Iran: Just ask George W. Bush Iran and the U.S.—were they always adversarial? As the Cold War took hold in the 1950s, Washington relied on Iran's reigning Shah to help stem Soviet influence spreading further in the oil-producing Middle East. The British had relied on nearly unfettered access to the Iranian oil industry via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, later to become BP. US Iran strikes: What does regime change mean? Trump comments on Iran leadership But Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his monarchist rule were growing unpopular at home among Iranians, and in 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh was elected as prime minister. Shortly after, he nationalized Iranian oil production in a bid to reclaim the country's oil industry and profits from significant foreign control. What led to the 1953 coup in Iran? Britain, shut out from Iranian oil, leaned on the U.S. for assistance. The American government at the time worried that Mossadegh's government signaled an end to Western footholds in the region in the face of Cold War-era anxieties and the USSR's push to expand its influence. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 orchestrated the overthrow of Mossadegh in 'Operation Ajax,' led by senior officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. It led to the overthrow of Mossadegh, who went on trial and was sentenced to house arrest, and restored and centralized power to Pahlavi. He would become the last Shah of Iran. The National Security Archive in 2013 officially acknowledged the U.S.'s role in the coup when it released declassified CIA documents on the operation. Learn more about Iran: 11 facts about the country following US strikes on three of its nuclear sites 'The 1953 coup remains a topic of global interest because so much about it is still under intense debate,' Malcolm Byrne of the National Security Archive wrote alongside the 2013 release. 'Even fundamental questions — who hatched the plot, who ultimately carried it out, who supported it inside Iran, and how did it succeed — are in dispute.' Journalist Stephen Kinzer said in his 2003 book 'All the Shah's Men' that the 1953 coup was a 'great trauma for Iran, the Middle East, and the colonial world,' marking the first time the U.S. overthrew a foreign government and altering how millions, especially in the region, saw the United States. How did the US-Iranian relationship play out after the coup? Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979, and the Islamic revolutionaries who took over accused the CIA of having trained the Shah's secret police and vowed to battle Western imperialism in the region. They branded America 'the Great Satan,' a nickname that endures to this day. In November 1979, revolutionary students seized the American embassy and took dozens of diplomats and other staff hostage for more than a year. Known as the Iran hostage crisis, it marked the end of a strategic alliance between the U.S. and the Shah's regime, ushering in a new age of hostility between the two nations. The 1953 coup loomed large in the revolution's rhetoric. The lasting impact of the 1953 coup While the U.S. and Iran have butt heads over a range of issues since the 1979 revolution and hostage crisis, including years of strife over Iran's nuclear program, the 1953 coup remains a critical event still invoked in modern Iran. Iranian historian Ervand Abrahamian writes in his 2013 book about the crisis that the coup had lasting impacts on American foreign policy and U.S.-Iranian relations and cast its 'darkest shadow' over Iran itself. 'The coup left a deep imprint on the country—not only on its polity and economy but also on its popular culture and what some would call mentality,' Abrahamian said in 'The Coup.' Contributing: Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY; Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
US on high alert after Iran strikes
Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here It's Monday. This humidity is on another level. 🥵 Oh, and if you're in the Washington area, be aware that the new Metro rail changes are in effect. 🗺️ Here's the new Metro map In today's issue: President Trump is meeting with his national security team this afternoon after taking the extraordinary step of inserting the United States into the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. Here's where things stand: Potential retaliation against U.S. troops: Fears over Iran potentially retaliating are high, including against any of the 40,000 U.S. forces in the Middle East. Americans are on alert: The U.S. has issued a number of alerts since the weekend strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites. Russia backs Iran: A Russian spokesperson says Russia is ready to help Iran. And Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi is in Moscow today to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Iran may retaliate economically: Iranian Parliament has reportedly approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz. This is a vital passage for trade — especially oil. That could cripple the global economy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asked China to step in and prevent Iran from closing the strait. 🗨️ Follow today's live blog ➤ THE TWO BIG QUESTIONS: 1 — Did the strikes destroy Iran's nuclear program? The Trump administration has expressed confidence that Saturday's mission to bomb Iran's nuclear sites was successful. Trump claimed he 'obliterated' their nuclear sites — and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told ABC News this morning that the White House is confident it hit Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles. 2 — Is the U.S. pushing for a regime change? Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio andDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth all insisted Sunday that the U.S. strikes were *not* intended to force a 'regime change' in Iran. But Trump then left that door open, floating a possible regime change on Truth Social. ➤ HAPPENING TUESDAY: Trump will travel to the Netherlands for the annual NATO summit Tuesday. ➤ HOW WE WENT FROM 0 TO 60 IN A FEW DAYS: Trump said in a statement read by the press secretary at Thursday's White House briefing that he would take up to two weeks to decide whether to strike Iran. But just two days later, the U.S. lobbed bombs at three Iranian nuclear sites. 📸 Satellite images of the strikes What changed in that time?: The New York Times reports that it was intentional 'political and military misdirection' from the White House. 'It was almost entirely a deception. Mr. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack.' Plus: Everyone in Trump's orbit had been trying to get in his ear about war vs. diplomacy. Read the NYT report: 'Shifting Views and Misdirection: How Trump Decided to Strike Iran' ➤ MORE READS: The Washington Post: A weakened Iran could turn to assassination and terrorism to strike back The Wall Street Journal: Trump's Iran Attack Revives Questions About War Powers NPR: Iran's relationship with Russia and China could come into play after U.S. strikes The Atlantic: Trump Changed. The Intelligence Didn't.: The president's decision to drop bombs on Iran was opportunistic, not a result of new information. Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has nixed several more provisions in Republicans' 'big, beautiful' megabill. ⭕ The first — holding White House officials in contempt: Republicans have included language to make it very difficult for courts to hold Trump administration officials in contempt. If passed, that could give Trump officials power to ignore court rulings because there's no easy enforcement mechanism to hold them in contempt. ^ Wow, this is a wild stat: Since January, courts have already ruled *against* the Trump administration at least 197 times, per The New York Times tracker. ^^For context: This controversial provision was included in the House-passed bill, but it went unnoticed by many. Several Republicans later realized it was in the bill after voting 'yes' and publicly said they regret their vote. ⭕ The second — border security and immigration enforcement: MacDonough rejected language that would authorize states — as opposed to the federal government — to conduct border security and immigration enforcement. ⭕ The third — increasing contributions for retirement: MacDonough ruled against GOP language to increase what federal employees would contribute to the Federal Employees Retirement Systems if they don't agree to become at-will employees. 🟩 But what is allowed to stay — AI: A 10-year ban on states regulating artificial intelligence (AI). This is important to keep in mind: The Senate parliamentarian's role is nonpartisan, and she is not deciding what lawmakers can and cannot pass. MacDonoughis sifting through the bill to decide what is allowed to be included in Republicans' reconciliation bill. Remember: Reconciliation is a legislative loophole to pass a bill with just 51 votes, not the usual 60 votes. MacDonough ruled these provisions are a violation of the Byrd Rule. If Republicans want to include them, they will need 60 votes. ➤ WHAT'S HAPPENING ON CAPITOL HILL THIS WEEK?: The Hill's Mychael Schnell posted a helpful breakdown of what to expect in Congress this week. Read: 'Congress returns to divisions over Iran strike amid budget battles' Coming tomorrow: In the latest edition of The Movement, The Hill's latest newsletter, Schnell will take a look at the inside the group making an 'EPIC' impact on the GOP's megabill. Click here to sign up & get it in your inbox. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case on whether a former Louisiana inmate can receive damages for having his dreadlocks forcibly shaved in prison. But the court said 'no' to hearing an appeal to Virginia's lifetime voting ban for felons. The House and Senate are in. President Trump is in Washington. (All times EST) 1 p.m.: Trump meets with his national security team. 5:30 p.m.: The Senate holds a vote to end debate on a nomination. 📆Today's agenda 6:30 p.m.: First and last House votes. 📆Today's agenda Tuesday: New York City's Democratic mayoral primary. 🔎What to know Thursday: The next scheduled day for Supreme Court opinions. 🍪 Celebrate: Today is National Pecan Sandies Day. 📱 No more WhatsApp for House staffers: Axios reports that the popular messaging app WhatsApp will be banned on House staffers' devices for security reasons. If you know of any dogs with dog walkers in the Boston seaport, this woman wants you to know that they are being *very* good boys and girls.
