Salvadoran Prison Officials Admitted to Abrego Garcia 'Your Tattoos Are Fine' Despite Trump Insisting Otherwise: Lawyers
Abrego Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador's CECOT prison by the Trump administration in March despite a standing court order prohibiting it, has accused both U.S. and Salvadoran authorities of subjecting him to abuse, deception and fabricated accusations of gang affiliation.
The deportation, which the U.S. Supreme Court later acknowledged as illegal, thrust Abrego Garcia into a prison notorious for violence and secrecy, Politico reported. Upon his arrival, he alleged that guards shaved his head, beat him with batons and threw him into an overcrowded cell with 20 other detainees under constant lights and limited access to bathrooms or bedding.
Abrego Garcia reportedly lost 31 pounds in two weeks and was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer until Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen visited him on April 17. Despite Trump's insistence, on television and in court filings, that Abrego had MS-13-related tattoos, Salvadoran prison officials reportedly told him, "Your tattoos are fine."
These statements, documented in a 40-page amended complaint filed this week, come from CECOT authorities who routinely deal with gang members and are trained to identify such markings. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said the Justice Department failed to provide credible evidence linking Abrego to any gang.
Following growing legal pressure, Abrego was eventually released from Salvadoran custody and flown back to the U.S. to face separate human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He remains detained but has opted to stay incarcerated until at least mid-July, citing fears that the Trump administration might deport him again despite ongoing legal proceedings.
Originally published on Latin Times
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
37 minutes ago
- DW
Trump signs 'Big Beautiful Bill' into law – DW – 07/05/2025
The signature policy enacts key parts of Donald Trump's agenda and could cement his second-term legacy. US President Donald Trump signed a sweeping tax and spending bill into law on Friday, a day after Congress narrowly passed it. It makes his 2017 tax cuts permanent, slashes federal spending on federal safety-net programs, and funds a major expansion of border security and defense. "I've never seen people so happy in our country because of that, because so many different groups of people are being taken care of: the military, civilians of all types, jobs of all types," Trump said at the signing ceremony during a Fourth of July picnic at the White House. It passed the House by just four votes, with nearly all Democrats and two Republicans opposing over concerns about health care cuts and a projected $3 trillion (€2.5 trillion) increase to the national debt. After a hard-fought legislative process, Trump achieved his goal of signing the signature policy bill on US Independence Day. "America's winning, winning, winning like never before," Trump said. He thanked the Republican lawmakers who helped pass the bill in Congress, especially House Speaker Mike Johnson who was on hand to witness the signing. The bill, dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," calls for tax breaks and increases in defense spending and immigration enforcement. "So you have the biggest tax cut, the biggest spending cut, the largest border security investment in American history," Trump said. At the same time, it will shrink the federal food assistance program and force through the largest cuts to the Medicaid health insurance scheme for low-income Americans since its 1960s launch. According to some estimates, up to 17 million people could lose their insurance coverage under the bill. Analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office also suggests it will add more than $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said in a statement that Trump's signature on the legislation "sealed the fate of the Republican Party, cementing them as the party for billionaires and special interests — not working families." He predicted the law would cost Republicans votes in next year's congressional elections in 2026. "This legislation will hang around the necks of the GOP for years to come," he said. Democrats are rolling out an ambitious campaign of rallies, voter registration drives, attack ads, bus tours, and even a multiday vigil, aimed at spotlighting the most controversial aspects of the legislation. "This was a full betrayal of the American people," Martin said. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DW
10 hours ago
- DW
'One event' arms pause troubling for Ukraine – DW – 07/04/2025
The US says its pause on arms shipments is a one-off. But amid the turbulent US-Ukraine relationship, the assurance is little comfort to Volodymyr Zelenskyy or his European supporters. Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy will seek "clarity" from Donald Trump on Friday amid a challenging week that saw a scheduled US arms shipment paused and Kyiv pummeled by another Russian drone strike. The US confirmed earlier this week that a batch of arms shipments to Ukraine would be paused in yet another reminder that the eastern European country's supply of advanced military equipment is not as secure as it once was. The US has downplayed this decision to withhold crucial arms shipments to Ukraine, as a state department spokesperson told reporters it was a one-off. "This is not a cessation of us assisting Ukraine or of providing weapons," said spokeswoman Tammy Bruce. "This is one event and one situation, and we'll discuss what else comes up in future." The US president has continued to press both sides of the conflict to negotiate a ceasefire and spoke with Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the matter on Thursday. But progress, according to Trump said, was limited. "I didn't make any progress with him today at all," he told reporters. "I'm not happy about that. I'm not happy… I don't think he's looking to stop." Russia followed that call with a massive drone strike on the Ukrainian capital. Zelenskyy is due to speak with Trump on Friday about the shipment pause. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The pair have had a strained relationship during Trump's second term, publicly evidenced in a televised falling out during a White House sit-down in early March. Following the disastrous visit, Zelenskyy sought to shore up support closer to home with key European allies. Europe has since stepped up their support in financial and supply terms. But if the US were to continue to withhold support, it would significantly undermine Ukraine's position versus Russia. "If this were to be a longer-term issue, it would definitely be a challenge for Ukraine to cope," Jana Kobzova, a senior policy fellow specializing at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told DW. "Partly because some of the US systems are not easily replaceable, that goes especially for air defense, but also some of the longer-range capabilities which Ukraine has started to produce domestically but not in the quantities needed." Despite the spat between Trump and Zelenskyy, the pause on shipments could be as much about the US needing to weigh its own interests against the support it gives to dozens of other countries, including Israel. "After the Israel-Iranian exchange, I can imagine that Trump wants to relocate resources," Marina Miron, a defense researcher specializing in military technology and Russian capability at Kings College London, UK, told DW. Brent Sadler, a research fellow at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, told Politico the move is likely a "due diligence" measure to ensure adequate resourcing for US forces elsewhere, including the Indo-Pacific in the event of a conflict outbreak in that region. Retired US Army General Ben Hodges, took a different view, saying the shipment pause was not about stockpiles. "It's a choice of this administration to placate Russia, at the expense of Ukraine," Hodges said. "It also shows the very limited understanding this administration [has] of the importance to America's strategic interests to help Ukraine and Europe deter Russia." Irrespective of the US' reasons for pausing its military shipments, the signals from the first months of the new administration suggest Europe's transatlantic ally is not the steadfast partner it once was. "There is a sober analysis both in Kyiv and the European part of NATO that relying on US military assistance to continue forever in Ukraine is not an option," said Kobzova. "And that has been there ever since March when the assistance was stopped for the first time." Among the American weapons due for shipping were Patriot air defense missiles and precision-guided artillery, according to officials speaking to newswires anonymously. The pause on these shipments comes at a critical time, with Russia ramping up weapons production and attacks. Those include strikes on soldier draft hubs in Poltava, the national capital Kyiv, the port city Odesa, and ground advances in key regions in Eastern Ukraine. Despite increased spending on defense from Europe's NATO members — now 5% of GDP following its June meeting — any long-term US stall on weapons will likely squeeze Ukraine and its neighbors. "There is recognition at the political level … that [Europe] would need to be increasing production, but none of that happens quickly enough for Ukraine," said Kobzova. Kobzova also pointed to investments being made into Ukraine's own defense industry to buffer against future supply-line cuts from the US. Europe is now the biggest investor in Ukraine's domestic defense industry. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video But even that might not be enough. Experts interviewed by DW highlighted the offer made by Zelenskyy to directly purchase armaments from the US, but in reality, arms manufacturing is a time-consuming process. "It takes two years to produce one [air defense missile] battery," the defense expert Miron told DW. "So even if you buy them now, it doesn't mean that they will be on the battlefield. You place a purchase order and you get in the queue." Finding a way to more effectively repair and adapt equipment for different missiles could be a potential stopgap to meet immediate needs. But, as defense supplies are again in doubt, Miron questioned whether Ukraine has what it needs to push back Russia's offensive. "The problem is time and money and we also have the variable of people," she said, adding that about 90 people are needed to operate a Patriot air missile battery. And Ukraine, Miron pointed out, is losing people, with no guarantee of replacement as the war grinds through its fourth year. Ukraine's support in Europe has been increasing — both rhetorically and materially. As it took over the presidency of the EU for the next six months, Denmark has seized the early opportunity to put Ukraine's membership application into the bloc back on the agenda. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on Thursday said the EU "must strengthen Ukraine. And we must weaken Russia." "Ukraine is essential to Europe's security. Our contribution to Ukraine is also a protection of our freedom. Ukraine belongs in the European Union. It is in both in Denmark's and Europe's interest." Her comments come on the back of a visit to Ukraine from German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who branded Ukraine's plight Berlin's most important foreign policy task. These statements from Europe might be more important than ever, as Miron says she is pessimistic about the future of the US-Ukraine relationship. "Certainly you can try some diplomacy, and explain to Trump that Ukraine matters, but I think Trump has already made up his mind," she said. "Trump has much more to solve with Russia in terms of global problems than with Ukraine."
DW
13 hours ago
- DW
EU-US trade talks: Crunch time looms with no deal in sight – DW – 07/04/2025
EU and US negotiators are attempting to finalize a deal on tariffs before an impending deadline on July 9. Experts say a no-deal scenario is possible. July 9 is almost upon us. That's when 50% tariffs could kick in on EU goods sold to the US if the two sides don't strike a deal beforehand. US President Donald Trump hit EU goods with a baseline tariff of 10% on April 2, and a rate of 25% on imported cars and 50% on steel and aluminum. He threatened to ramp the 10% rate up to 50% by April 9, but a stock market selloff prompted by his tariffs led to a postponement. In the meantime, EU and US negotiators have been working to strike an agreement ahead of the looming deadline, amid doubt in European capitals that EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic will be able to strike a deal that satisfies the member states. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told a press conference on Thursday (June 3) that striking a comprehensive trade deal in 90 days was "impossible" but was hopeful of "an agreement in principle", specifically referring to the agreement the US and UK had struck as a model to aim for. Those watching the negotiations closely say there have been sharp divisions among European Union member states over what concessions are acceptable and on what the US side should offer. For example, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has spoken of the need to strike a deal quickly, criticizing the European Commission's "complicated" approach. "What is at stake here is the rapid resolution of a customs dispute, particularly for our country's key industries," he said. Yet, French President Emmanuel Macron has decried the idea of tariffs being levied by powerful countries as "blackmail", without specifically referring to Trump. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, from the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington D.C., doesn't think the position of the German chancellor will be "acceptable" for all EU members. "Merz has said a number of times that we can live with a 10% across the board tariff. As long as we don't get a 25% sectoral tariff on cars, etc.," he told DW. While the comments of Sefcovic and von der Leyen have been somewhat conciliatory towards Trump and the US, Kirkegaard considers this to be an attempt to maintain unity amongst member states. "That's basically the Commission trying to protect itself against attacks from member states, because it's obviously they would have to bear the consequences of a trade war," he said. If the UK deal is a model, then the EU will likely have to live with 10% tariffs remaining in place on many goods, as the UK has done. The US-UK agreement cut the 25% tariff on UK cars to 10%, but the number of cars that can be imported on that duty is limited to 100,000 — roughly the amount of cars the UK sold to the US in 2024. Any cars exported above that quota will be subject to a 27.5% tax. The EU sold over 700,000 cars to the US last year. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video However, Kirkegaard believes if the steep car, steel and aluminium tariffs remain at the same level, it will hard for many on the EU side to accept. "As long as that's the case, there's not going to be a deal, in my opinion," he said. "It is ultimately not acceptable to the EU, which is an economy roughly comparable in size to the US, for US tariffs to go up and the EU's to not go up." Kirkegaard argues that in a trade confrontation between economies of the same size, tariffs should "go up together and down together." Bill Reinsch, a senior economics adviser with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), thinks a UK-style agreement is the most likely outcome. However, what is most important for Trump is the perception that he has "won" rather than what has actually been agreed, Reinsch told DW. "What matters for him is the Oval Office meeting, that so-and-so was agreed, and now everything's going to be fine. So it wouldn't surprise me if in the end there's a 'quote, unquote agreement' with the EU." He argues it would be prudent for the EU to focus on policy outcomes rather than perceptions of who has won. "Let him have the win. If you let him have the win, what he wins doesn't matter. So you don't have to give up very much if you handle it right." One area where there has been a lot of speculation around possible EU concessions, away from tariffs, is on its digital policy, particularly its Digital Services Act and possible digital sales taxes. Germany has been considering a 10% tax on the sales of US digital giants such as Google and Meta's Facebook in Europe. Trump has spoken out against such plans and this week Canada dropped a digital sales tax proposal to keep trade talks with the US alive. Reinsch thinks the EU should prevent member states introducing these taxes because "Trump is right" in his position, he argued, and that is "not even rhetoric." "I think they are clearly discriminatory against some American companies," he said, adding that from a policy standpoint "it's totally the wrong approach." "If you want to build European competitors, you don't do that by dragging down the competition this way. You do it by building European competitors and creating viable options," said Reinsch. As the July 9 deadline looms, serious consideration is being given to the implications of a negotiations blow-up. The EU has described thetrans-Atlantic trade relationship as "the most important commercial relationship in the world," as bilateral trade in goods and services reached €1.6 trillion ($1.88 trillion) in 2023, according to EU Commission data. Kirkegaard says a no-deal scenario could lead to the requirement for fiscal stimulus in some EU countries due to "short-term volatility." But the EU can cope with that, he believes. "We would not be back in [financial crisis of] 2008 or facing a situation similar to even the energy price shock that happened after the Russian invasion in 2022 — absolutely not," he said. He expects the EU to "lose half a percentage point of growth" this year and next year, which was "not trivial," but at the same time "nothing we couldn't live with." Reinsch has a different view, saying a failure would be "bad news" for everybody. "I think in terms of actual trade, it probably would not be as impactful as a blow-up with China because we buy so much more from China. But in terms of disrupting the relationship and particularly disrupting trans-Atlantic investment, I think it would be a huge problem."
