Rubio leading negotiations with Bukele on returning migrants
The Justice Department disclosed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading negotiations for the return of a Venezuelan man sent to a Salvadoran prison.
The disclosure, made in Monday court filings, is no guarantee the Trump administration will secure the return of a man known only in court documents as Cristian, who was deported in spite of court-ordered protections.
But it strikes a less aggressive tone as the Trump administration has otherwise resisted efforts to comply with various court orders requiring them to return migrants who were wrongly removed.
The filing notes Rubio's long-standing relationship with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.
'Based on his deep diplomatic experience with El Salvador and the secretary's familiarity with political and diplomatic sensitivities in that country, he is personally handling the discussions with the government of El Salvador regarding persons subject to the court's order detained in El Salvador,' the State Department said in a statement included in the filing.
It adds that Rubio has 'read and understands this court's order and wants to ensure the court he is making prompt and diligent efforts' to comply.
Cristian was the second publicly reported case of someone mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
The 20-year-old Cristian was among those who entered the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor, part of a lawsuit that protected him and others from removal while they were permitted to seek asylum.
In another case, Salvadoran man Kilmar Abrego Garcia was sent to a prison in the country despite a 2019 order from an immigration judge protecting him from being removed and sent to his native country.
In that case, the Trump administration has resisted a Supreme Court order to return the man, saying the directive to 'facilitate' his return requires only sending a plane to receive him should El Salvador wish to release him.
Bukele has said he will not release Abrego Garcia.
In a third case, the Justice Department has said it is working to return a Guatemalan man who was deported to Mexico, despite having previously been raped and extorted in the country.
In court filings last week, the administration said it was arranging for him to come back to the U.S. on the return leg of a deportation flight.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
4 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Elon Musk may be the only person in the world who can criticize Donald Trump in public. For now.
If you come at Donald Trump, he's going to respond. Unless, apparently, you're Elon Musk. Trump hasn't said a word about Musk's public complaints about Trump's budget bill. It's hard to imagine Trump staying silent forever. But even this restraint tells you a lot about the Musk/Trump alliance. A pretty fundamental rule of political physics in our age: If you criticize Donald Trump, he roars back. Which makes what's happening now worth noting: Elon Musk is criticizing Donald Trump, and Trump … isn't responding. As you likely know by now, on Monday afternoon, Musk used his X account to complain about the Republican budget bill — the one that's supposed to be Trump's signature legislation, and the one that's literally called the " One Big Beautiful Bill" act because that's the name Trump likes. More specifically: Musk called the bill " a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," he added. That story — the richest man in the world, and for at least several months, a key Trump ally, blasting a Trump project in public — dominated Monday's news cycle. Even Fox News had to cover it. And under normal circumstances, Trump would rage back. Not this time, though. Trump has yet to acknowledge Musk's broadside out loud, or on his Truth Social platform. When a Fox News reporter asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt "how mad" Trump would be when he learned about Musk's comments, she had a restrained answer ready: "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it." And when I asked the White House press office for comment Wednesday morning, they referred me to Leavitt's previous statement. Obvious conclusion: For now, at least, the Trump team is going out of its way not to stoke a feud with Musk. It seems very unlikely that Trump's silence is going to be permanent: Trump loves holding forth in front of the press, so someone's going to ask him about it at some point. Still, this level of what seems to be restraint is remarkable for a man who doesn't usually restrain himself, and who loathes people who poke at him in public. What's happening? For starters, it's worth noting that Trump has already gone through a version of this. Last week, Musk used much more muted language to criticize the same bill in a CBS interview, and those comments also became a news story. And Trump didn't fire back at Musk then, either — even when asked about it at a press conference. It's also worth noting that even though Musk used scathing language to condemn the bill on Monday, he never once criticized Trump directly. That gives both men rhetorical wiggle room: Musk can argue that his problems with the bill have nothing to do with the man who's promoting it. And Trump can lump in Musk's critique along with everyone else who has problems with the bill, including some Republicans like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. But it's also likely that the most likely thing is the most likely thing: That Donald Trump has enormous admiration for Elon Musk, and treats him differently than just about anyone else in the world. And that even though Musk has officially left his role as a part-time White House advisor, Trump still wants him on his side.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
India's Vedanta says Trump's tariffs damaging, seeks import curbs
By Neha Arora (Reuters) -Indian metals-to-oil conglomerate Vedanta said on Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump's doubling of aluminium tariffs to 50% poses a threat to the Indian industry already struggling with surging imports. Trump's latest round of tariffs on aluminium and steel, which took effect on Wednesday, have unsettled the global markets. "The 50% tariff announced by Trump is damaging to the Indian aluminium industry, which is already under pressure from surging imports that threaten to create surplus and risk to domestic market access," a Vedanta spokesperson told Reuters. The miner, which is the country's largest aluminium producer, urged the Indian government to implement tariffs to protect against imports. "..There should be duty guard-rails for the aluminium industry as well which has so far invested more than $20 billion to set up the current domestic primary aluminium capacity," the spokesperson said. India's cumulative aluminum exports fell 19% to 2.24 million metric tons in the fiscal year ended March 2025, according to government data. Separately, the country's federal steel minister said earlier this week that the impact of Trump's steel tariffs would be minor on the local industry, as India, the world's second-largest crude steel producer, does not export to the U.S. in significant quantities. In April, India imposed a 12% temporary tariff on some steel imports, locally known as a safeguard duty, to curb a surge in cheap shipments primarily from China.
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Australian woman on trial for mushroom murder of in-laws claims she was trying to fix a ‘bland' lunch
Before Erin Patterson's in-laws and their relatives arrived at her home for lunch, she bought pricey ingredients, consulted friends about recipes and sent her children out to a movie. Then, the Australian woman served them a dish containing poisonous death cap mushrooms — a meal that was fatal for three of her four guests. Whether that was Patterson's plan is at the heart of a triple murder trial that has gripped Australia for nearly six weeks. Advertisement 7 Erin Patterson woman served her in-laws and their relatives a dish containing poisonous death cap mushrooms. AP Prosecutors in the Supreme Court case in the state of Victoria say the accused lured her guests to lunch with a lie about having cancer, before deliberately feeding them toxic fungi. But her lawyers say the tainted beef Wellington she served was a tragic accident caused by a mushroom storage mishap. She denies murdering her estranged husband's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and their relative, Heather Wilkinson. Advertisement The mother of two also denies attempting to murder Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, who survived the meal. In a rare step for a defendant charged with murder, Patterson chose to speak in her own defense at her trial this week. 7 Erin Pattterson's lawyers say the tainted beef Wellington she served was a tragic accident caused by a mushroom storage mishap. 10 News First On Wednesday, she spoke publicly for the first time about the fateful lunch in July 2023 and offered her explanations on how she planned the meal and didn't become sick herself. Adding more mushrooms to a 'bland' meal 7 In a rare step for a defendant charged with murder, Patterson chose to speak in her own defense at her trial this week. via REUTERS Advertisement No one disputes that Patterson, 50, served death cap mushrooms to her guests for lunch in the rural town of Leongatha, but she says she did it unknowingly. Patterson said Wednesday she splurged on expensive ingredients and researched ideas to find 'something special' to serve. She deviated from her chosen recipe to improve the 'bland' flavor, she said. She believed she was adding dried fungi bought from an Asian supermarket from a container in her pantry, she told the court. 'Now I think that there was a possibility that there were foraged ones in there as well,' she told her lawyer, Colin Mandy. Patterson had foraged wild mushrooms for years, she told the court Tuesday, and had put some in her pantry weeks before the deaths. The accused says she 'shouldn't have lied' about cancer Advertisement 7 She believed she was adding dried fungi bought from an Asian supermarket from a container in her pantry, she told the court. AP Patterson, who formally separated from her husband Simon Patterson in 2015, said she felt 'hurt' when Simon told her the night before the lunch that he 'wasn't comfortable' attending. She earlier told his relatives that she'd arranged the meal to discuss her health. Patterson admitted this week that she never had cancer — but after a health scare, she told her in-laws she did. In reality, Patterson said she intended to have weight loss surgery. But she was too embarrassed to tell anybody and planned to pretend to her in-laws that she was undergoing cancer treatment instead, she said. 7 She earlier told his relatives that she'd arranged the meal to discuss her health. Provided 'I was ashamed of the fact that I didn't have control over my body or what I ate,' a tearful Patterson said Wednesday. 'I didn't want to tell anybody, but I shouldn't have lied to them.' Patterson says she threw up her mushroom meal The accused said she believes she was spared the worst effects of the poisoned meal because she self-induced vomiting shortly after her lunch guests left. She had binged on most of a cake and then made herself throw up — a problem she said she had struggled with for decades. Patterson also said she believes she had eaten enough of the meal to cause her subsequent diarrhea. She then sought hospital treatment but unlike her lunch guests, she quickly recovered. Advertisement At the hospital where her guests' health was deteriorating, her estranged husband asked her about the dehydrator she used to dry her foraged mushrooms, she said. 7 Erin Patterson said she believes she was spared the worst effects of the poisoned meal because she self-induced vomiting shortly after her lunch guests left. Newspix via Getty Images 'Is that how you poisoned my parents?' she said Simon Patterson asked her. Growing afraid she would be blamed for the poisoning and that her children would be taken from her, Patterson said she later disposed of her dehydrator. She told investigators she'd never owned one and hadn't foraged for mushrooms before. Advertisement While still at the hospital, she insisted she'd bought all the mushrooms at stores even though she said she knew it was possible that foraged mushrooms had accidentally found their way into the meal. She was too frightened to tell anyone, Patterson said. 7 If convicted, Erin Pattterson faces life in prison for murder and 25 years for attempted murder. JAMES ROSS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Also later, Patterson said she remotely wiped her cell phone while it sat in an evidence locker to remove pictures of mushrooms she'd foraged. Advertisement Prosecutors argued in opening their case in April that she poisoned her husband's family on purpose, although they didn't suggest a motive. She carefully avoided poisoning herself and faked being ill, they said. The trial continues on Thursday with Patterson's cross-examination by the prosecutors. If convicted, she faces life in prison for murder and 25 years for attempted murder.
