Wrongly deported Salvadoran migrant arrested on return to US
The US Supreme Court had ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia . (AP pic)
WASHINGTON : The Salvadoran migrant at the heart of a row over president Donald Trump's hardline deportation policies was returned to the US on Friday and arrested on human smuggling charges.
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was brought back to the US from El Salvador and charged with trafficking undocumented migrants, attorney general Pam Bondi said.
'Abrego Garcia has landed in the US to face justice,' Bondi said at a press conference.
The US Supreme Court had ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Abrego Garcia after he was mistakenly deported in March to a notorious maximum security prison in El Salvador.
But Bondi insisted to reporters that his return to the US resulted from an arrest warrant presented to Salvadoran authorities.
'We're grateful to (Salvadoran) President (Nayib) Bukele for agreeing to return him to our country to face these very serious charges,' she said.
In a post on X, Bukele said 'we work with the Trump administration, and if they request the return of a gang member to face charges, of course we wouldn't refuse.'
Trump, in remarks to reporters Friday, described Abrego Garcia as a 'pretty bad guy' and said he 'should've never had to be returned'.
White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson said Abrego Garcia's return 'has nothing to do with his original deportation'.
'There was no mistake,' Jackson said on X. 'He's returning because a new investigation has revealed crimes SO HEINOUS, committed in the US, that only the American justice system could hold him fully accountable.'
Abrego Garcia, 29, was living in the eastern state of Maryland until he became one of more than 200 people sent to a prison in El Salvador as part of Trump's crackdown on undocumented migrants.
Most of the migrants who were summarily deported were alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the Trump administration has declared a foreign terrorist organisation.
Justice department lawyers later admitted that Abrego Garcia – who is married to a US citizen – was wrongly deported due to an 'administrative error'.
Abrego Garcia had been living in the US under protected legal status since 2019, when a judge ruled he should not be deported because he could be harmed in his home country.
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego Garcia's attorneys, said the government had returned him to the US 'not to correct their error but to prosecute him'.
'Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after,' Sandoval-Moshenberg said. 'This is an abuse of power, not justice.'
Bondi alleged that Abrego Garcia had 'played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring' and was a smuggler of 'children and women' as well as members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13.
She said Abrego Garcia, who was indicted by a grand jury in Tennessee, would be returned to El Salvador upon completion of any prison sentence.
Democratic senator Chris Van Hollen visited Abrego Garcia in April in El Salvador and welcomed his return to the US.
'For months the Trump Administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution,' the senator from Maryland said in a statement.
'Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the US,' he said.
'The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.'
According to the indictment, Abrego Garcia was involved in smuggling undocumented migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and other countries into the US between 2016 and earlier this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
9 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Trump's threat to cancel Musk's contracts exposes risks of US reliance on SpaceX
WASHINGTON, June 7 — SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon—the capsule Nasa relies on for crew flights—before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now Nasa's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS—a symbol of post-Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. Space monopoly? The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly US$5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes US$4 billion from Nasa for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly US$6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported US$1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the United States would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access — as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. Nasa had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays—and a failed crewed test last year—have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over Nasa's Artemis programme. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit—but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 — it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. Nasa meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. 'Nasa is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues,' the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating Nasa's long-term plans. SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. Private power, public risk But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman — a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX — as Nasa administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds — that it might not be worth the trust.' — AFP
Free Malaysia Today
10 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Trump-Musk showdown threatens US space plans
Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. (File pic) WASHINGTON : SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when president Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon – the capsule NASA relies on for crew flights – before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now NASA's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS – a symbol of post–Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly US$5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes US$4 billion from NASA for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly US$6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported US$1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the US would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access – as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. NASA had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays – and a failed crewed test last year – have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over NASA's Artemis program. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit – but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 – it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. NASA meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. 'NASA is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues,' the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating NASA's long-term plans SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the center for strategic and international studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman – a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX – as NASA administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds – that it might not be worth the trust.'
Free Malaysia Today
10 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
US court says Trump can bar AP from key White House events for now
The Associated Press decided to continue referring to the 'Gulf of Mexico' – and not the 'Gulf of America' as decreed by US President Donald Trump. (AP pic) WASHINGTON : President Donald Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House media events for now, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, pausing a lower court order to give access to the US news agency's journalists. AP journalists and photographers have been barred from the Oval Office and from traveling on Air Force One since mid-February because of the news agency's decision to continue referring to the 'Gulf of Mexico' – and not the 'Gulf of America' as decreed by Trump. In April, district court judge Trevor McFadden deemed that move a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. But on Friday, a panel of judges with the Washington-based federal appeals court ruled that, pending appeal, the government could go ahead and bar AP from 'restricted presidential spaces,' which it said did not fall under First Amendment protections. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted,' the ruling said. 'Moreover, without a stay, the government will suffer irreparable harm because the injunction impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces,' it said. Following the ruling, Trump hailed on his Truth Social platform the 'Big WIN over AP today'. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed the sentiment, posting to X, 'VICTORY! As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations.' The AP, a 180-year-old news organisation that has long been a pillar of US journalism, has so far refused to backtrack on its decision to continue referring to the 'Gulf of Mexico'. In its style guide, it highlights that the Gulf of Mexico has 'carried that name for more than 400 years' and the agency 'will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen'. Trump has long had an antagonistic relationship with most mainstream news media, previously describing them as the 'enemy of the people'. Since his return to the presidency in January, his administration has sought to radically restructure the way the White House is covered, notably by favoring conservative podcasters and influencers. Two weeks after barring the AP, the White House stripped journalists of the nearly century-old power to decide which organisation's employees will be members of the daily pool of reporters and photographers covering presidential events. His administration has also pressed to dismantle US government-funded overseas outlets Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, and is seeking to starve National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) of federal funds.
