US government plans to deport Abrego Garcia to a third country: Prosecutors
Federal prosecutors have told a judge in Maryland that the United States government plans to initiate a new round of removal proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man whose mistaken deportation in March drew outcry.
On Thursday, Department of Justice lawyer, Jonathan Guynn, said the removal proceedings would be to a 'third country', not El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia was previously deported.
But the prosecutor also said the government's plans are not 'imminent'. Guynn added that the US government would comply with all court orders.
The government's plan came to light as part of an emergency request presented to US District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Abrego Garcia is currently being held in Tennessee, where he faces criminal charges. But judges in Tennessee have indicated they plan to release Abrego Garcia – leaving him vulnerable to re-arrest by immigration agents.
His lawyers petitioned Judge Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland when he is released in Tennessee, to prevent his deportation before he stands trial.
'We have concerns that the government may try to remove Mr Abrego Garcia quickly over the weekend,' Jonathan Cooper, one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers, said.
Judge Xinis, however, said she could not move as quickly as Abrego Garcia's lawyers requested.
Abrego Garcia is one of the most prominent immigrants swept up in President Donald Trump's recent push for 'mass deportation'.
Though he was subject to a 2019 protection order allowing him to remain in the country, Abrego Garcia was arrested and deported around March 15, setting off a high-profile legal battle for his return.
Initially, he was held with hundreds of other deported men in El Salvador's Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, a maximum-security prison accused of housing abusive conditions. But by April, amid intense media scrutiny, it was revealed he had been transferred to another facility in the city of Santa Ana.
Prior to his removal, Abrego Garcia had not been charged with a crime. But when the US government announced his abrupt return on June 6, it revealed that it had sought an indictment against Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges.
That case is ongoing in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers there have argued that the charges are an attempt by the Trump administration to save face.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang and a danger to society. It has relied on a 2022 video of a traffic stop involving Abrego Garcia as evidence: He is seen driving a large vehicle with nine passengers, while a police officer speculates why they do not have luggage.
Officials have previously described Abrego Garcia's initial March deportation as an 'administrative error'.
Separately from the Tennessee case, Judge Xinis has weighed whether the March deportation was unlawful – and whether the Trump administration's actions constitute contempt of court.
In April, Xinis, and later the US Supreme Court, ruled that the US government had an obligation to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador after his mistaken deportation.
But lawyers for Abrego Garcia have argued that the US government delayed and failed to provide court-mandated information about his return. All the while, they say, the Trump administration was preparing criminal charges against their client.
On Thursday, Judge Xinis said she had to consider the Trump administration's pending motions to dismiss the case before she could rule on the emergency request to bring Abrego Garcia to Maryland.
She scheduled a July 7 court hearing in Maryland to discuss the emergency request and other matters.
Abrego Garcia currently remains in temporary custody in Tennessee to prevent a second deportation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
11 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US government plans to deport Abrego Garcia to a third country: Prosecutors
Federal prosecutors have told a judge in Maryland that the United States government plans to initiate a new round of removal proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man whose mistaken deportation in March drew outcry. On Thursday, Department of Justice lawyer, Jonathan Guynn, said the removal proceedings would be to a 'third country', not El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia was previously deported. But the prosecutor also said the government's plans are not 'imminent'. Guynn added that the US government would comply with all court orders. The government's plan came to light as part of an emergency request presented to US District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland. Abrego Garcia is currently being held in Tennessee, where he faces criminal charges. But judges in Tennessee have indicated they plan to release Abrego Garcia – leaving him vulnerable to re-arrest by immigration agents. His lawyers petitioned Judge Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland when he is released in Tennessee, to prevent his deportation before he stands trial. 'We have concerns that the government may try to remove Mr Abrego Garcia quickly over the weekend,' Jonathan Cooper, one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers, said. Judge Xinis, however, said she could not move as quickly as Abrego Garcia's lawyers requested. Abrego Garcia is one of the most prominent immigrants swept up in President Donald Trump's recent push for 'mass deportation'. Though he was subject to a 2019 protection order allowing him to remain in the country, Abrego Garcia was arrested and deported around March 15, setting off a high-profile legal battle for his return. Initially, he was held with hundreds of other deported men in El Salvador's Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, a maximum-security prison accused of housing abusive conditions. But by April, amid intense media scrutiny, it was revealed he had been transferred to another facility in the city of Santa Ana. Prior to his removal, Abrego Garcia had not been charged with a crime. But when the US government announced his abrupt return on June 6, it revealed that it had sought an indictment against Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges. That case is ongoing in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers there have argued that the charges are an attempt by the Trump administration to save face. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang and a danger to society. It has relied on a 2022 video of a traffic stop involving Abrego Garcia as evidence: He is seen driving a large vehicle with nine passengers, while a police officer speculates why they do not have luggage. Officials have previously described Abrego Garcia's initial March deportation as an 'administrative error'. Separately from the Tennessee case, Judge Xinis has weighed whether the March deportation was unlawful – and whether the Trump administration's actions constitute contempt of court. In April, Xinis, and later the US Supreme Court, ruled that the US government had an obligation to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador after his mistaken deportation. But lawyers for Abrego Garcia have argued that the US government delayed and failed to provide court-mandated information about his return. All the while, they say, the Trump administration was preparing criminal charges against their client. On Thursday, Judge Xinis said she had to consider the Trump administration's pending motions to dismiss the case before she could rule on the emergency request to bring Abrego Garcia to Maryland. She scheduled a July 7 court hearing in Maryland to discuss the emergency request and other matters. Abrego Garcia currently remains in temporary custody in Tennessee to prevent a second deportation.
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump administration launches probe into University of California system
The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced an investigation into hiring practices at the University of California (UC) system, the latest instance of his feud with higher education. The Department of Justice said on Thursday that it would investigate efforts by the UC system to increase the diversity of staff, accusing the school of employing practices that 'openly measure new hires by their race and sex'. The Trump administration has previously depicted diversity initiatives as a form of discrimination. 'Public employers are bound by federal laws that prohibit racial and other employment discrimination,' Harmeet Dhillion, the head of the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement. 'Institutional directives that use race- and sex-based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law.' In a letter of notice to the University of California, the Justice Department noted that it had 'reason to believe' unlawful actions occurred on some of the school's campuses. But it added that it had not 'reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the investigation'. The University of California system is one of the most prominent public university systems in the US, with 10 campuses and more than 299,000 enrolled students. The school defended its hiring practices on Thursday in response to the investigation announcement. 'The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws,' a spokesperson for the UC system said in a statement. 'The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported.' President Trump has yet to weigh in on the investigation, but his administration has repeatedly clashed with US universities during his second term in the White House. Prestigious universities, such as Harvard and Columbia, have had federal grants and contracts cancelled over allegations that they have not done enough to crack down on campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. The Trump administration said those protests were anti-Semitic and created an unsafe environment for Jews on college campuses. Trump and his allies have also portrayed universities as hotbeds of left-wing ideas and political dissent. In the case of Harvard University, the Trump administration sent a letter on April 11 with a list of demands for changes. One required Harvard to submit to an external audit of its enrollment and staff, to evaluate 'viewpoint diversity' with the aim of implementing 'reforms' to its admissions and hiring practices. The external party, the letter noted, would have to 'satisfy the federal government'. Harvard has resisted those demands, citing the need to protect academic freedom. The Trump administration has since threatened its tax-exempt status and sought to restrict its ability to enrol foreign students. In response, Harvard has filed lawsuits to restore its federal funding and block the Trump administration's attempts to bar foreign students. On Thursday, the school also unveiled an agreement with the University of Toronto that would allow foreign students to continue their Harvard studies in Canada if Trump's visa restrictions affected their ability to attend classes. Critics have described Trump's actions as an effort to pressure schools into greater conformity with the political views and priorities of the White House. One particular flashpoint for the Trump administration has been efforts to promote diversity in university hiring and enrolment. Proponents say those initiatives help counter the legacy of discrimination in higher education, but the Trump administration has said they are a form of discrimination themselves. In a news conference on Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not weigh in on the specifics of the UC investigation, but reaffirmed Trump's commitment to dismantling diversity initiatives. 'It's the position of this president that we want to restore a merit-based society and culture in the United States of America where people are not hired, nor are they promoted, based on the colour of their skin or their gender,' she said. On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order ending 'diversity, equity and inclusion' (DEI) programming in the federal government. He called those programmes a source of 'immense public waste and shameful discrimination'. But critics have argued that Trump's efforts have served as their own form of discrimination, violating the constitutional rights of those he disagrees with. The government, for instance, has sought to deport several foreign students who took part in pro-Palestine activities on college campuses, raising free speech questions. They include a Turkish graduate student named Rumeysa Ozturk, who was arrested by immigration agents for co-authoring an article in the school newspaper calling for an end to the war in Gaza.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
DRC's peace deal with Rwanda risks swapping war for resource exploitation
The United States-mediated peace agreement to be signed between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda on June 27 – a development ostensibly aimed at quelling decades of brutal conflict in Africa's Great Lakes region – casts a long and familiar shadow. While the immediate cessation of hostilities provides a desperately needed respite, the deal, brokered by the Trump administration and witnessed by the State of Qatar, arrives with an unsettling undertone: The spectre of resource exploitation, camouflaged as diplomatic triumph. This emerging 'peace for exploitation' bargain is one that African nations, particularly the DRC, should never be forced to accept in a postcolonial world order. For too long, eastern DRC has been a crucible of human suffering, its vast mineral wealth – including coltan, cobalt, lithium, copper and gold, indispensable for global technologies – serving as both a prize and a curse. This mineral richness has led to relentless conflict, contributing to one of the world's most protracted humanitarian crises, with nearly three million people displaced and regular outbreaks of disease. The M23 rebel group, widely believed to be backed by Rwanda despite Kigali's denials, has been a key player in this cycle of violence, reportedly earning significant monthly sums through illicit taxation and control of mining areas such as Rubaya. The group's resurgence, coinciding with a spike in global demand for these strategic minerals, underscores how deeply entrenched economic interests are in the region's instability. The joint statement from the Washington peace talks outlined standard provisions for territorial integrity, disarmament, and the return of refugees. Yet the official text remained conspicuously silent on the mineral sector. That omission speaks volumes. According to multiple reports, the Trump administration's renewed diplomatic push followed Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi's offer to facilitate direct US investment in the country's mineral wealth. Indeed, informed sources suggest that parallel but related negotiations for a broader US-DRC minerals agreement are under way. The aim? To bolster US access to critical resources and counter China's entrenched dominance in Africa's supply chains – a clear geopolitical play in the global race for strategic minerals. The intertwining of peace and mineral interests is deeply alarming, echoing a tragic and persistent pattern in the DRC's history. From the rubber and ivory atrocities under Belgium's King Leopold II – where millions perished under forced labour regimes – to the systematic extraction of cobalt, copper, and uranium under Belgian colonial rule, the Congolese people have rarely been the beneficiaries of their own land's bounty. After independence, Mobutu Sese Seko presided over a kleptocratic regime that channelled mineral wealth into personal and elite enrichment, further weakening governance. The Congo Wars, often referred to as 'Africa's World War', were similarly driven by the quest to control mineral-rich territories, with both regional and international actors competing for illicit access. This is the essence of the so-called 'resource curse' that has long plagued the DRC: Immense natural wealth leading not to development, but to poverty, conflict, and systemic corruption. When resource deals are struck in the shadow of conflict, exploitation takes the form of opaque contracts that favour foreign corporations, enable tax avoidance, and exclude local communities from fair revenue-sharing. The consequences are devastating: The violent displacement of people, environmental degradation, and the reinforcement of corrupt networks that siphon off national wealth. The human cost is immeasurable – communities uprooted, forced into unsafe mining work (including children), and exposed to widespread sexual violence used as a weapon of control. This 'peace deal' risks becoming another instrument of neo-colonialism. As political philosopher Kwame Nkrumah warned, neo-colonialism allows foreign powers to dominate not through direct occupation, but via economic means. In this context, foreign capital is used not to build, but to extract – deepening the divide between resource-rich African nations and wealthy consumer economies. The global demand for critical minerals – from smartphones to electric vehicles – spurs an insatiable appetite that routinely trumps human rights, environmental protections, or national sovereignty. For the Congolese people, genuine peace must mean more than the end of war. It must mark the beginning of self-determination, where the country's resources are managed transparently and equitably for the benefit of its citizens – not wielded as bargaining chips in global power struggles. The international community, particularly the mediating powers – including the US under Secretary of State Marco Rubio – bear a profound responsibility to ensure that any accompanying economic agreements are subject to rigorous scrutiny. They must demand full transparency, robust environmental and social safeguards, and a firm commitment to equitable wealth distribution that empowers local communities. Anything less would be a tragic continuation of a colonial legacy – a cynical exchange of temporary calm for sustained plunder – undermining the very principles of justice and sovereignty that a truly postcolonial world must uphold. The Congolese people deserve a peace that liberates both their lives and their land – not one that merely reshuffles the chains of exploitation. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
