Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Journey

Born in San Salvador in 1995 and targeted by gang threats in his youth, Abrego Garcia fled to the U.S. around 2011 to escape persecution. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal, citing credible evidence that he and his family were threatened by gangs in El Salvador

However, in March 2025, he was deported to El Salvador under the Trump administration’s claim of administrative misstep—a move that overtly violated the 2019 court order . The deportation exposed him to one of the country’s most dangerous prisons, sparking domestic and international outrage

Abrego Garcia’s family filed suit, and Judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals backed this, and the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government must act—though it stopped short of compelling an immediate return

By June, Abrego Garcia was back in the U.S., facing human-smuggling charges. A federal court imposed temporary protections: he was released with electronic monitoring, forbidden from immediate deportation, and requiring early notification if removal to a third country (e.g., Uganda) was imminent

 Homan’s Hardline Stance

In public, Tom Homan repudiated the notion that the deportation was an “error,” instead calling it an “oversight” and insisting “the facts have changed.” He asserted that Abrego Garcia is now a “terrorist” due to alleged ties to MS‑13—a gang classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization—thus stripping away his prior protection

On Morning Joe, Homan pressed further: “If he comes back… he will be detained and removed again,” emphasizing that the administration sees this as a national security imperative overriding judicial errors .

Legal and Ethical Tensions at Play

This case spotlights a volatile clash between executive authority and judicial oversight:

Judicial safeguards—due process, non-refoulement, and refusal to deport individuals facing persecution—were blatantly compromised in the March deportation Executive overreach: Homan’s insistence on deportation despite court orders raises alarms about power unchecked by constitutional constraints.

Political symbolism: The administration casts the case as defending public safety, using strong language around terrorism and gang violence

 Voices of Opposition and Public Sentiment

Lawmakers & advocacy groups: Twenty-five U.S. senators demanded immediate return, denouncing the detention as a grave violation of due process  Multiple Democratic congressmembers also traveled to El Salvador to push for compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders

Public opinion: Polls revealed that a majority believe Abrego Garcia should be returned, with only 31% supporting the administration’s strategy

Defense attorneys argue the administration’s hardline shifts—threatening deportation to Uganda—are coercive and vindictive upon a defendant exercising his rights

After rejecting a plea deal involving deportation to Costa Rica, Abrego Garcia learned DHS may instead send him to Uganda—a country with which he has no ties. Legal experts view this as alarming, challenging norms around deportation to third countries with valid grounds

This strategy raises serious constitutional and ethical questions: can the U.S. forcibly deport a person, under court supervision, to a state where they have no connection, purely as leverage?

This saga isn’t just about one man—it reflects systemic tension in U.S. immigration policy:

Rule of law erosion: When the executive branches defy or circumvent judicial directives, foundational constitutional duties are endangered.

Rights of refugees and immigrants: Abrego Garcia had every legal protection against return to El Salvador—his maltreatment there underscores the peril in dismissing international obligations.

Precedent-setting danger: If the government can disregard court orders and coerce defendants via third-country threats, future removals could bypass fair process altogether.

Conclusion

Tom Homan’s declaration that Abrego Garcia “ABSOLUTELY will be deported” crystallizes a larger constitutional confrontation. On one side stands a decades-old legal framework safeguarding individuals—even non-citizens—from unjust expulsion. On the other, an executive willing to escalate beyond precedent, framing the case as national security over due process.