Democrats can afford to fight for Kilmar Abrego Garcia

is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine.
A rally in support of Kilmar Abrego Garcia takes place outside the US District Court for the District of Maryland on April 15, 2025, in Greenbelt, Maryland. Maansi Srivastava/The Washington Post via Getty Images
President Donald Trump has been sending undocumented immigrants to a mega prison in El Salvador without due process. Most of these deportees have no criminal record, yet our government has condemned them to indefinite incarceration in an infamously inhumane penitentiary.
In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Trump administration admits that its deportation order was unlawful. In 2019, a court had ruled that Abrego Garcia could not be sent to El Salvador, as he had a credible fear of being persecuted in that country. The White House attributed his deportation to an 'administrative error.'
The Supreme Court has ordered Trump to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States, but the White House refuses to comply and has publicly vowed that Abrego Garcia is 'never coming back.'
Some Democrats believe that their party must call attention to this lawless cruelty. Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen and four progressive House members have traveled to El Salvador in recent days to check on Abrego Garcia's condition and advocate for his due process rights.
But other Democrats fear their party is walking into a political trap. After all, voters are souring on Trump's handling of trade and the economy, but still approve of his handling of immigration. Some Democratic strategists therefore think that Van Hollen and other progressive advocates for Abrego Garcia are doing the president a favor: By focusing on the plight of an undocumented immigrant — instead of the struggles of countless Americans suffering from Trump's tariffs — they have increased the salience of his best issue and reinforced the narrative that Democrats care more about foreigners than about the American middle class.
This story was first featured in The Rebuild.
Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz.
As one strategist told CNN, 'The impulse among lots of Democrats is to always crank the volume up to 11 and take advantage of whatever the easiest, most obvious photo opportunity is. In this case, you get a situation where you're giving the White House and the Republicans a lot of images and visuals that they think are compelling for them.'
Some progressives have declared this argument morally bankrupt. But I don't think that's right. Democrats have a moral responsibility to defend both America's constitutional order and its most vulnerable residents. It does not follow, however, that they have a moral duty to hold press events about Abrego Garcia's case — even if such photo ops do nothing to abet his liberation, while doing much to boost Trump's political standing.
In my view, the argument that Democrats are doing more harm than good by taking a high-profile stand in favor of due process is not immoral, but simply mistaken. Van Hollen's trip has plausibly benefited US residents unlawfully detained in El Salvador. And the political costs of such dissent are likely negligible, so long as Democrats keep their messaging about immigration disciplined and eventually shift their rhetorical focus to Trump's economic mismanagement.
The case for Democrats to dodge a high-profile fight over Trump's deportations
So far as I can tell, no Democrat is arguing that the party should acquiesce to Trump's lawless deportations. The concerned strategist who spoke with CNN stipulated that 'Democrats should stand up for due process when asked about it.'
Rather, the argument is that 1) the party should not go out of its way to elevate immigration as an issue, or invite the impression that the rights of undocumented immigrants are its chief concern, and 2) congressional delegations to El Salvador risk doing precisely that.
The case for this position is fairly simple. Voters are much more supportive of Trump's handling of immigration than of his economic management. In data journalist G. Elliott Morris's aggregation of recent issue surveys, voters approve of Trump's handling of immigration by 2.7 points, while disapproving of his approach to inflation and the cost of living by 21.8 points.
Therefore, anything Democrats do to increase the salience of immigration plausibly aids Trump. What's more, elevating Abrego Garcia's cause above other issues could give voters the impression that Democrats are not prioritizing their own economic concerns.
Or at least, this is what Republican strategists seem to believe. Following House progressives' trip to El Salvador, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement, 'House Democrats have proven they care more about illegal immigrant gang bangers than American families.' The NRCC proceeded to air digital ads against 25 swing-district Democrats, in which it offered to buy the representatives' airfare to El Salvador if they promised to 'livestream the whole thing and snap plenty of selfies with their MS-13 buddies.'
For those urging Democrats to embrace message discipline, focusing on the due process rights of the undocumented is a lose-lose proposition, accomplishing nothing of substance while damaging the party politically. In this view, Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador did not actually help Abrego Garcia, whose fate still lies with America's court system and the White House. To the contrary, Democrats are effectively giving Trump an incentive to ship more undocumented immigrants to a foreign prison without due process. After all, the president wants his opponents to take high-profile stances in defense of the undocumented. If Democrats teach him that they will do precisely that — so long as he violates immigrants' due process rights — then they will have made such violations more likely in the future, not less.
Meanwhile, this faction of wary strategists insist that their party has a genuine image problem. Yes, Trump's tariffs are deeply unpopular. And as their economic impacts surface, the president's trade policies are liable to become more salient, no matter what Democrats say or do. But thus far, the public's declining confidence in Trump is not translating into rising confidence in the Democratic Party.
Historically, Democrats always outperformed Republicans on the question of which party 'cares more for the needs of people like you,' outpolling the GOP by 13 points on that score as recently as 2017. Yet in a Quinnipiac poll taken after Trump single-handedly engineered an economic crisis with his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, the two parties are tied on that question.
What's more, even as the public sours on Trump, the GOP remains more popular than the Democratic Party. In a new Pew Research survey, voters disapproved of Trump's job performance by a 59 to 40 percent margin. Yet the Republican Party's approval rating in that same survey was 5 points higher than the Democrats', with only 38 percent of voters expressing support for the latter.
Democrats have time to improve their image; the midterms are well over a year away. So some might wonder why the party should fret about increasing the salience of an unfavorable issue so far from Election Day. But there's an argument that the party should be doing everything in its power to increase its popularity — and reduce Trump's — right now. Businesses, universities, and various other civic institutions will need to decide in the coming weeks and months whether to comply with the president's illiberal attempts to discipline their behavior. The weaker Trump appears to be, the less likely it will be that American civil society acquiesces to authoritarianism.
Thus, from this vantage, message discipline is a moral imperative. Centering Democratic messaging on Abrego Garcia's case might help ambitious Democrats earn small-dollar donations and adoration among the party's base. But it undermines effective opposition to Trump's authoritarian regime.
Related How Trump could defeat himself
Why Democrats should learn to stop worrying and love standing up for due process
This argument is reasonable. But in my view, it understates the potential benefits of vigorous advocacy against Trump's lawless deportations and overstates the political harms.
On the substance, Democratic officials flying to El Salvador to check on Abrego Garcia's condition could plausibly deter abuses against him and other immigrant detainees in that country. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele may be a reactionary aligned with Trump, but he is surely aware that the United States has a two-party system. His government therefore must give some thought to its relationship with a hypothetical future Democratic administration. Thus, by advocating so forcefully for US residents unlawfully imprisoned in El Salvador, the Democratic Party has given Bukele some incentive to, at a minimum, keep Abrego Garcia and others like him alive (something that his government routinely fails to do with its prisoners).
Meanwhile, bringing a measure of comfort to an American unlawfully disappeared to a foreign prison is a clear moral good. In an interview with Vox's Today, Explained podcast, Van Hollen said that Salvadoran authorities have not allowed Abrego Garcia to communicate with his family or his lawyers. Rather, they had kept him isolated from the entire outside world, until a US senator demanded a meeting with him. Only through Van Hollen's intervention was Abrego Garcia's wife able to send her greetings to him, or even confirm that her husband was still alive. If an elected official has the power to serve a constituent in this way, it seems worthwhile that they do so.
The prospect that Van Hollen might have effectively encouraged more unlawful deportations by taking this course of action — since Trump wants his opponents to do photo ops on behalf of undocumented immigrants — merits consideration. But it strikes me as far-fetched. One could just as easily posit that Democrats ducking this issue entirely would have emboldened Trump to ramp up unlawful deportations. Ultimately, I think the president's ambitions on this front will be determined by the scope and persistence of the judiciary's opposition, not by Democratic messaging.
It seems possible — perhaps, even likely — that Democrats loudly advocating for Abrego Garcia is politically suboptimal, relative to a monomaniacal focus on the economy. But so long as Democrats act strategically on other fronts, I think the political costs of taking a stand on due process are likely to be negligibly small, for at least five reasons:
First, as far as progressive immigration positions go, 'The Trump administration should honor court orders and the due process rights of longtime US residents' is pretty safe territory. In March, a Reuters-Ipsos poll asked Americans whether Trump 'should keep deporting people despite a court order to stop?' — they said no by a margin of 56 to 40 percent. And an Economist-YouGov poll released Wednesday found voters specifically agreeing that Trump should bring Abrego Garcia back by a 50 to 28 point margin.
If Democrats frame Abrego Garcia's case as a question of Americans' civil liberties — while reiterating their party's commitment to enforcing immigration law and securing the border — they should be able to mitigate any political cost inherent to elevating this issue. And that has largely been Van Hollen's message. As the senator argued at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday, 'I keep saying I'm not vouching for Abrego Garcia. I'm vouching for his constitutional rights because all our rights are at stake.'
Second, there does seem to be some scope for eroding Trump's advantage on immigration. On March 1, polls showed voters approving of the president's immigration policies by more than 10 points. Surveys taken in the last 10 days, by contrast, show that margin has fallen to 2.5 points. It is unclear whether Democrats' messaging on the Abrego Garcia case had any impact on this decline. But given the timing, that possibility cannot be summarily dismissed
Third, some influential right-wingers endorse the Democratic position on Abrego Garcia. Last Thursday, pro-Trump podcaster Joe Rogan detailed his misgivings about the president's violations of due process:
What if you are an enemy of, let's not say any current president. Let's pretend we got a new president, totally new guy in 2028, and this is a common practice now of just rounding up gang members with no due process and shipping them to El Salvador, 'You're a gang member.' 'No, I'm not.' 'Prove it.' 'What? I got to go to court.' 'No. No due process.'
Defending a principle mutually endorsed by Joe Rogan and the Roberts Court does not seem like the riskiest stand that Democrats could take.
Fourth, I'm not sure that the media's coverage of this controversy looks all that different in the alternate dimension where Democrats voiced opposition to Trump's actions when asked, but otherwise spoke exclusively about his failed economic policies. The president exiling US residents to a foreign prison — and refusing to attempt to repatriate one of them, in defiance of the Supreme Court — is a huge news story. This is a much more shocking and unprecedented event than the House GOP's quest to cut Medicaid, even if the latter will ultimately inspire more voter backlash.
In a world where Van Hollen and his House colleagues never go to El Salvador, the general subject of immigration might have received marginally less media attention over the past week. But I think the effect here is quite small.
Fifth, Democratic officials are not speaking out on this entirely at their own direction. Their party's base is understandably alarmed by the president's lawlessness. Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost said he traveled to El Salvador because he had received 'hundreds and hundreds' of emails and calls from his constituents demanding action on this issue. Thus, there might be some cost to Democratic fundraising and morale, were the party's officials to uniformly avoid calling attention to the controversy.
All this said, I think it's true that the optimal political strategy for Democrats is to focus overwhelmingly on economic issues. Voters are more concerned with prices and economic growth than with due process. And Trump is most vulnerable on tariffs, Medicaid cuts, and his economic management more broadly.
I just don't think that dedicating some time and energy to championing bedrock constitutional principles — 19 months before the midterm elections — is by itself a perilous indulgence. In any event, to this point, it has proven entirely compatible with driving down Trump's approval rating, which has fallen by 7 points since February in Pew's polling.
Related Trump has two options after a wrongful deportation
Democrats need to find the economic equivalent of going to El Salvador
Going forward, Democrats do need to convey that their top concern is Americans' living standards. If Trump moves ahead with anything resembling his current trade policy, his approval is likely to fall, irrespective of Democratic messaging. But the party needs to make sure that voters see it as an effective alternative on economic issues — one that cares more about the needs of people like them.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

13 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Tulsi Gabbard Flips Sides in MAGA Civil War Over Iran's Nuclear Capabilities

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has flipped her stance on Iran after President Donald Trump nuked her intelligence as 'wrong.' Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 25 that there was no intelligence to suggest Iran was building nuclear weapons, though the country had enriched its uranium to higher levels. Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's June 12 'preemptive' strike on Iran—which he justified by saying that the country has a 'secret plan' to weaponize uranium—Trump sided with Israel's countervailing position. On two separate occasions this week, Trump rebuffed Gabbard's earlier assessment of Iran's nuclear program. 'I don't care what [Gabbard] said,' Trump said aboard Air Force One. 'I think they were very close to having one.' In another comment on Wednesday, the president added that Iran was 'a few weeks' away from turning their uranium into a weapon, echoing similar sentiments shared by Netanyahu. Then on Friday, Gabbard fell in line with Trump, attacking the media for having the gall to believe what she said. 'The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division,' Gabbard wrote to her 600K followers. 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly.' She added, 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Gabbard included a clip of what she called her 'full testimony,' which has since racked up 8.9 million views. The world has been thrown into a state of limbo while Trump weighs a decision on whether to get the United States involved in strikes on Iran, a decision the country warned would be 'very dangerous.' In a statement read on Thursday by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Trump said he would make his decision 'within the next two weeks' based on the fact that there 'is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Reuters reported that the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with a group of European diplomats in Geneva on Friday for nuclear talks.

Newsweek

22 minutes ago

• Newsweek

US B-2 Stealth Bombers on the Move Across Pacific

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. As the fighting between Israel and Iran continues, six B-2 stealth bombers departed Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and are en route to Guam, according to U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News and flight tracking data analyzed by multiple news outlets. Newsweek reached out the Pentagon's Defense Press Operations office and the White House via email on Saturday for comment. NITRO KC135s returning to Altus AFB, OK B2s MYTEE11 FLT & MYTEE21 FLT continuing westbound to destination Andersen AFB, Guam. — Aircraft Spots (@AircraftSpots) June 21, 2025 Why It Matters This month, the conflict between Israel and Iran has escalated dramatically, with President Donald Trump calling for the evacuation of Tehran, Iran's capital city home to over 9.5 million people. Israel initially struck Tehran and several other cities in "Operation Rising Lion," a campaign it said was meant to preempt a planned Iranian attack and disrupt Iran's nuclear capabilities. Iran, which has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, has since retaliated, though Israeli defense systems—bolstered by U.S. military technology—have intercepted about 99 percent of incoming missile fire, according to Israeli officials on Saturday morning in an X, formerly Twitter, post. Iran hit a hospital in southern Israel on Thursday, and local reports noted that buildings in Tel Aviv were on fire from Iranian missiles on Friday. Israel's strikes have killed at least 585 people in Iran—including 239 civilians—and wounded another 1,300, according to a human rights group that has long tracked the country, Washington-based Human Rights Activists. Iran's government has not offered overall casualty figures. Israel has said 24 people have been killed since Friday and 500 more have been wounded, according to Israeli officials. The U.S. is Israel's closest ally, providing billions of dollars in military aid annually. Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran disintegrated, and the two countries have held strained, distrusting relations over the past four-decades. Iran's nuclear program has long been a focal point of U.S. and Israeli concern, with Iran insisting its efforts are solely for energy purposes. The second Trump administration had been involved in talks with Iran ahead of the conflict, although no formal diplomacy has come out of it. During his first presidency, Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. B-2s and Bunker-Buster Bombs The B-2 can carry two 15-ton bunker-buster bombs—which only the U.S. possesses, making these aircraft critical to any potential operation against Iran's most fortified nuclear sites. Officials and experts have suggested that the U.S.'s 30,000-pound (13,000kg) bunker-buster bomb is the only weapon capable of destroying the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, a facility believed to be central to Tehran's nuclear program and carved deep into a mountain. The movement signals the U.S. may be positioning military assets to provide Trump with operational options as the Israel-Iran conflict intensifies. A B-2 Stealth Bomber opens the 135th Rose Parade Presented by Honda on January 1, 2024, in Pasadena, California. A B-2 Stealth Bomber opens the 135th Rose Parade Presented by Honda on January 1, 2024, in Pasadena, To Know The bombers apparently refueled after launching from Missouri, suggesting they launched without full fuel tanks due to a heavy onboard payload, which could potentially be bunker-buster bombs. The deployment comes as Trump prepares to meet with his national security team to discuss potential U.S. involvement in Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. According to The New York Times, air traffic control communications showed the B-2 aircraft taking off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Iran's most advanced and hardened nuclear facility, the Fordow plant in the country's northwest, is a fortress. Built inside a mountain some 300 feet underground and reinforced by layers of concrete, the plant, which is the most likely target of a potential American strike, is impenetrable by any bomb except the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The B-2 Spirit, a U.S. stealth bomber, is currently the only aircraft designed to deploy the GBU-57 and can carry two bunker buster bombs at a time. Military experts note that destroying such fortified targets would likely require multiple precision strikes at the exact same location. Earlier on Saturday, Israel launched a wave of airstrikes against missile sites and a nuclear facility in Iran, while Iran fired a barrage of ballistic missiles and launched drones into Israel. What People Are Saying Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard wrote on X on Friday: "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." President Donald Trump earlier this week wrote on Truth Social: "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a national address, in part: "We warn America of the consequences of engaging in war, because it will suffer severe damage if it decides to do so. War is met with war, bombing with bombing, and strike with strike." Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi on X on Wednesday: "Iran solely acts in self-defense. Even in the face of the most outrageous aggression against our people, Iran has so far only retaliated against the Israeli regime and not those who are aiding and abetting it. Just like Netanyahu manufactured this war to destroy diplomacy, the world should be highly alarmed about increasing attempts by the failing Israeli regime to get others to bail it out and to expand the flames to the region and beyond." What Happens Next Trump will make a decision on whether to have the U.S. join Israel's war with Iran "within the next two weeks," according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who told reporters Thursday that the decision is based on Trump's view of whether Iran "may" or "may not" agree to a diplomatic resolution through negotiations over its nuclear program. The president is expected to receive intelligence briefings with the National Security Council (NSC) over the weekend as he considers possible actions against Iran.

Boston Globe

29 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Belarus frees dissident Siarhei Tsikhanouski and 13 others after a rare visit from top US envoy

Advertisement 'My husband is free. It's difficult to describe the joy in my heart,' Tsikhanouskaya told reporters. But she added her team's work is 'not finished' while over 1,100 political prisoners remain behind bars in Belarus. Tsikhanouski, known for his anti-Lukashenko slogan 'stop the cockroach,' was jailed after announcing plans to challenge the strongman in the 2020 election. Following his arrest, his wife ran in his stead, rallying large crowds across the country. Official results of the election handed Lukashenko his sixth term in office but were denounced by the opposition and the West as a sham. Tens of thousands of people poured into the streets in the aftermath of the August 2020 vote, in the largest protests in the country's history. In the ensuing crackdown, more than 35,000 people were detained, with many beaten by police. Prominent opposition figures either fled the country or were imprisoned. Tsikhanouski was sentenced to 19 1/2 years in prison on charges of organizing mass riots. Advertisement Lukashenko has since extended his rule for a seventh term following a January 2025 election that the opposition called a farce. Since July 2024, he has pardoned nearly 300 people, including imprisoned U.S. citizens, seeking to mend ties with the West. At the meeting in Minsk, Lukashenko hugged and warmly welcomed Kellogg and the American delegation to his residence. 'I really hope that our conversation will be very sincere and open. Otherwise, what is the point of meeting? If we are clever and cunning in front of each other, we will not achieve results,' Lukashenko said. 'You have made a lot of noise in the world with your arrival.' Lukashenko's press secretary, Natalya Eismont, told Russian state media hours later that he freed the 14 prisoners following a request from U.S. President Donald Trump. It was not immediately clear whether Kellogg's visit might pave the way for the lifting of some U.S. sanctions against Minsk, imposed over the brutal crackdown against the 2020 protests and Lukashenko's support of Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine. 'Lukashenko is clearly trying to get out of international isolation, and the release of such a large group of political prisoners signals a desire to start a dialogue with the U.S. in order to soften international sanctions,' Belarusian political analyst Valery Karbalevich told The Associated Press. 'After five years, Lukashenko is trying to loosen the knot with which the Kremlin tied him, using him for the war against Ukraine,' Karbalevich said. Advertisement Belarus has allowed the Kremlin to use its territory to send troops and weapons into Ukraine, and also to station its forces and nuclear weapons there. Many other prominent dissidents still languish in Belarusian jails, among them Nobel Peace Prize winner Ales Bialiatski, a human rights advocate serving a 10-year prison sentence on charges widely denounced as politically motivated. Bialiatski, founder of Viasna, Belarus' oldest and most prominent rights group, was arrested in 2021 during raids by the country's main security agency that still goes by its Soviet-era name, the KGB. In March 2023, he was convicted on charges of smuggling and financing actions that 'grossly violated public order,' and sentenced to 10 years. Authorities labeled him especially dangerous because of alleged 'extremist' tendencies. He, his family and supporters say the charges against him are politically motivated, and a U.N. panel of human rights experts called on Belarus to release him. In 2022, when Bialiatski was behind bars, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with the prominent Russian rights group Memorial and Ukraine's Center for Civil Liberties. Bialiatski has been serving his sentence at a penal colony for repeat offenders in the city of Gorki. The facility is notorious for beatings and hard labor. Bialiatski's wife warned last year about his deteriorating health, saying the 62-year-old battles multiple chronic illnesses. Also behind bars is Viktor Babaryka, a former banker who was widely seen in 2020 as Lukashenko's main electoral rival, and Maria Kolesnikova, a close ally of Tsikhanouskaya and charismatic leader of that year's mass protests. With her close-cropped hair and trademark gesture of forming her hands into the shape of a heart, Kolesnikova became an even greater symbol of resistance when Belarusian authorities tried to deport her. She responded by tearing up her passport at the border and walking back into Belarus. Advertisement Released alongside Tsikhanouski was longtime Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty correspondent Ihar Karnei, the U.S. government-funded broadcaster confirmed. Karnei, who had also worked with prominent Belarusian and Russian newspapers, had been serving a three-year service on extremism charges he rejected as a sham. 'The release was a big surprise for me,' Karnei told AP in a phone interview Saturday. 'I didn't believe it until the very end, but now I understand that other political prisoners deserve the same.' He said that he spent about six months in solitary confinement. 'Most people suffer simply for their beliefs and do not deserve these terrible conditions and terms,' Karnei said. RFE/RL's Belarusian service had been designated extremist in the country, a common label handed to anyone who criticizes Lukashenko's government. As a result, working for it or spreading its content has become a criminal offense. 'We are deeply grateful to President Trump for securing the release of this brave journalist, who suffered at the hands of the Belarusian authorities,' the broadcaster's CEO Stephen Capus said Saturday in a press release. Karnei was detained several times while covering the 2020 protests. Unlike many of his colleagues, he chose to stay in Belarus despite the ensuing repression. He was arrested again in July 2023, as police raided his apartment seizing phones and computers. The group Reporters Without Borders says Belarus is Europe's leading jailer of journalists. At least 40 are serving long prison sentences, according to the independent Belarusian Association of Journalists. Many face beatings, poor medical care and the inability to contact lawyers or relatives, according to activists and former inmates. Advertisement Belarus also freed an Estonian national who had set up an NGO to raise funds for Belarusian refugees. According to the Estonian Foreign Ministry, Allan Roio was detained last January, and sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison on charges of establishing an extremist organization.