Kilmar Garcia's wife refuses to answer question about getting order of protection against husband
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of an illegal immigrant whose deportation has divided America, got suddenly tight-lipped Friday when asked about a protection order she filed against her husband in 2021.
In the filing, written in Sura's own handwriting, she alleged Kilmar Abrego Garcia repeatedly beat her, saying, "At this point, I am afraid to be close to him. I have multiple photos/videos of how violent he can be and all the bruises he [has] left me."
"Good Morning America" host Michael Strahan spoke to Sura on Friday about her husband's controversial deportation to a mega-prison in El Salvador.
After detailing how overjoyed she and Abrego Garcia's family were to see him alive in a photo with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., she gave a rosy summary of their relationship, saying, "We've been together over 7 years. It's been amazing. He's a loving husband, amazing father, and we were just young parents trying to live the American dream."
Trump White House Trashes Ny Times Over Headline About Deported El Salvadoran
After Sura denied that her husband is in MS-13 or any other gang, the news host pressed on another issue.
Read On The Fox News App
"I know this is a sensitive question, but I have to ask it. You did take out a temporary order of protection against your husband in 2021," he said. "Were you in fear of your husband?"
Sura paused for a moment and then dodged the question, answering, "My husband is alive, that's all I can say."
"Okay," Strahan, saying he now knows "not to push you on that, apparently."
She ended the interview by declaring that she won't stop fighting until Abrego Garcia returns home safely.
On Wednesday, Sura put out a statement addressing the domestic violence allegations: "After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution following a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order, in case things escalated. Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process. We were able to work through the situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling,"
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
"Our marriage only grew stronger in the years that followed. No one is perfect, and no marriage is perfect," the statement continued. "But that is not a justification for ICE's action of abducting him and deporting him to a country where he was supposed to be protected from removal."
Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant living in Maryland, was deported to the El Salvadoran megaprison "Terrorism Confinement Center" (CECOT) last month. Officials acknowledged in court that his deportation had been an administrative error. However, now some top Trump officials say he had been correctly removed and contend that he is a member of the notorious MS-13 gang.
Both a federal district court and the U.S. Supreme Court have ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release and return to the U.S. for proper deportation proceedings, with a federal appeals court rejecting the administration's request to block the order on Thursday.
Leavitt, Bondi Unload On 'Deranged' Dems, Call For Apologies From Media Over Ms-13 Suspect
Click To Get The Fox News App
In the 2021 filing, Sura alleged that Abrego Garcia punched and scratched her on her eye, leaving her bleeding. He also allegedly threw her laptop on the floor.
She wrote that on another day, Abrego Garcia got angry again, started yelling, and ripped her shirt and shorts off before grabbing her arm and leaving marks.
Sura recalled two times in 2020 that Abrego Garcia hit her.
"In November 2020, he hit me with his work boot," she wrote. "In August 2020, he hit me in the eye leaving a purple eye."Original article source: Kilmar Garcia's wife refuses to answer question about getting order of protection against husband
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
16 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy . The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Indianapolis Star
18 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time," saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. "I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy. The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China.
