Abrego Garcia ordered released pending trial on migrant smuggling charges
A US judge on Sunday ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the migrant returned to the US earlier this month after being wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, released on bail pending his criminal trial on migrant smuggling charges.
However, the decision by US magistrate judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville, Tennessee does not necessarily mean Abrego, as he prefers to be known, will go home to his family. The judge had acknowledged at a June 13 court hearing that Abrego was likely to be placed in immigration detention even if he is released.
Abrego, a Maryland resident whose wife and young child are US citizens, was deported on March 15 to El Salvador, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that he not be sent there because he could be persecuted by gangs. Officials called his removal an 'administrative error', but for months said they could not bring him back.
Critics of US President Donald Trump pointed to Abrego's case as evidence his administration was prioritising increased deportations over due process, the bedrock principle people in the US, whether citizens or not, can contest governmental actions against them in the courts. Trump, who has pledged to crack down on illegal immigration, said Abrego belongs to the MS-13 gang, an accusation his lawyers deny.
The justice department brought Abrego back to the US on June 6 after earlier securing an indictment charging him with working with at least five co-conspirators as part of a smuggling ring to bring immigrants to the US illegally.
Prosecutors said Abrego, 29, picked up migrants from the US-Mexico border more than 100 times, and transported firearms and drugs.
Abrego has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers said the Trump administration brought the charges to cover up their violations of Abrego's rights, and said the alleged co-conspirators cooperating with prosecutors should not be trusted because they are seeking relief from deportation and criminal charges of their own.
In her ruling on Sunday, Holmes said the government failed to show Abrego posed a danger to the community or was unlikely to appear in court, scheduling a hearing for Wednesday.
In a separate civil case, Greenbelt, Maryland-based US district judge Paula Xinis is investigating whether the Trump administration violated her order to facilitate Abrego's return from El Salvador. The US Supreme Court unanimously upheld the order.
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
an hour ago
- Mail & Guardian
Understanding the first 160 days of Senate Foreign Relations Committee on African affairs and global health policy
Is there partisan agreement on the strategic priorities for African affairs and global health policy among the majority members? A rapid review suggests that there has been a significant shift in the strategic priorities on African affairs and global health policy that have been pursued in formal engagements by the majority members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC). Over the first 160 days, the formal engagements of the majority members were not as strongly aligned with the strategic priorities of countering global health threats and strengthening democratic institutions as they were with the strategic priorities of ending regional conflicts, realigning US foreign policy, promoting human rights, countering the diplomatic engagement of malign actors and countering the predatory practices of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). That is a curious finding. It means that those formal engagements were not perfectly aligned with the strategic priorities for SFRC engagement on African affairs and global health policy that were declared by the relevant subcommittee chair during the first 160 days of either the last session or the current one. In turn, that raises a number of follow-on questions of policy relevance. One is whether there is partisan agreement on the strategic priorities for African affairs and global health policy among the majority members. Another is whether there is bipartisan agreement that the promotion of human rights should be a strategic priority among the majority and minority members. Media outlets and think tanks should seek to provide answers to those questions. Strategic priorities A rapid review shows that there were significant changes in the strategic priorities for African affairs and global health policy that were declared by the respective chair of the SFRC Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy within the first 160 days of the current session versus the last one. Current session At the start of this session, the current subcommittee chair articulated six strategic priorities for engagement. In the press release following his appointment, Senator Ted Cruz A few weeks later, Cruz held Last session In the prior session, the former subcommittee chair articulated a very different set of strategic priorities for engagement. In the press release following his appointment, Senator Corey Booker Committee engagement A rapid review of the hearings, chair press releases and subcommittee chair press releases shows that there was a similar level of SFRC majority engagement on African affairs and global health policy over the first 160 days of the current session versus the last one. Committee hearings In the current session, the SFRC held two committee hearings that were specifically focused on African affairs and global health policy. The first took place on 13 May 2025. It was a In the last session, the SFRC held two committee hearings on African affairs and global health policy over the same period. The first took place on 19 April 2023. It was a Committee majority press In the current session, the SFRC majority press featured six official statements on African affairs and global health policy. The first was an official statement on the In the last session, the SFRC majority press also featured six official statements on African affairs and global health policy. The first was an official statement on Subcommittee chair press In the current session, the press for the subcommittee chair featured three official statements on African affairs and global health policy. The first was an In the last session, the press for the subcommittee chair featured five official statements on African affairs and global health policy. The first was on Analytic synthesis A synthesis of the research findings suggests that there has not been a perfect match between the formal engagements of majority members and the strategic priorities declared by the current subcommittee chair over the first 160 days of the current session. Generally speaking, those formal engagements have not been strongly aligned with at least two of the strategic priorities declared by Booker during the first 160 days of the last session (that is, countering global health threats; strengthening democratic institutions). They have been more aligned with: One of the strategic priorities declared by Booker during the first 160 days of the last session (protecting human rights). Two of the strategic priorities declared by Senator Cruz during the first 160 days of the current session (countering the diplomatic engagement of malign actors; countering the predatory practices of the CCP). Two issues that were not declared to be strategic priorities by either Senators Booker or Cruz during the first 160 days of their respective sessions (realigning US foreign policy; ending regional conflicts). That raises follow-on questions of policy relevance. One is whether the historic pursuit of nomination approvals significantly impacted the strategic priorities that were pursued on African affairs and global health policy during the first 160 days of the current session. Another is whether there was partisan collective agreement on the strategic objectives for African affairs and global health policy among the majority members during the first 160 days of the current session. Yet another is whether there was bipartisan agreement that the promotion of human rights should be a strategic priority for African affairs and global health policy among the majority and minority committee members during the first 160 days of the current session. If so, then that raises the question of why the current subcommittee chair did not declare the promotion of human rights to be a strategic priority in response to domestic political concerns. Of course, there are many others. For example, why did the current subcommittee chair not declare Beyond the synthesis, the rapid review suggests that the current organisational structures of the SFRC subcommittees and State Department bureaus may not be optimised for the achievement of the current strategic priorities for African affairs. Like last session, there are hard jurisdictional boundaries drawn between North Africa affairs and sub-Saharan Africa affairs. Those probably impede the bridging of the artificial divide that exists between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa in African affairs. Moreover, there are blurred jurisdictional boundaries drawn between African affairs and global health policy. That may have made sense when countering global health threats was one of the strategic priorities for African affairs. However, it makes less sense now that countering global health threats has been downgraded as a strategic priority for African affairs. Research limitations The scope of the rapid review was exploratory in nature. As one would expect, it follows that there are several important limitations that merit consideration. First, the rapid review only critically examined a subset of the formal engagements on African affairs and global health policy by the majority members. Missing formal engagements include draft legislation and staff delegations. Their inclusion could have a significant impact on the research findings. There was draft legislation on African affairs and staff delegations to African countries during the first 160 days of the current session. Second, the rapid review did not critically examine informal engagements on African affairs and global health policy by the majority members. Missing informal engagements included social media posts. Their inclusion could have a significant impact on the research findings. There were majority leadership posts on African affairs on social media during the first 160 days of the current session. Moreover, social media was a major platform for engagement. As evidence, the SFRC Chairman's recent Third, the rapid review only critically examined one period of time. That could have had a significant impact on the research findings. There were intervening events that took place over the first 160 days of the current session. One was a There is therefore a clear and present opportunity to improve the general knowledge about the engagement of the SFRC on African affairs and global health policy by way of future research that is designed to address these research limitations. Michael Walsh is a visiting scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Ambassador (Ret) Charles Ray is a member of the Board of Trustees and chair of the Africa Programme at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Mixed views of US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites
One moment, Donald Trump was saying that he needed 2 more weeks to think about the next step, then, suddenly, 6 B-2 bomber jets are flying into Iran and dropping bunker-busting bombs- obliterating Iran's proudly protected Nuclear sites, deep underneath the hardened, mountainous facility. The World at large is a much safer place than it was 2 days ago, but Trump's critics are quick to jump to conclusions that there must be some political motivation for this attack on Iran's nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. Depending on where you stand with Donald Trump as a mere person, or what your ideological or religious views are, the way that you reason and the conclusions that you will reach will be directly linked to your belief systems. I do not believe that when a regime warns of your annihilation and keeps enriching uranium to weapons grade, I must be so naive to think that they have just been saying this for fun, for several decades now. Iran's ties with North Korea and Russia, as well as China, are enough to make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. Some would say that the US should've never joined this war on terror, others would say that Trump betrayed his voters, while some would call Netanyahu a murderer and all kinds of ugly names, when in fact, both Trump and Netanyahu have proven to be men of truth, men of honour and above all, men of extreme strength. I cannot think of anything stronger and more admirable than 2 godly men who stand up in power, for the Free World, doing what no other nation has ever managed to do- striking Iran in its backyard, so quickly, that even the Ayatolla had no idea what had just happened.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
How international pressure fast-tracked policy changes that prioritise foreign profits over local ownership
President Cyril Ramaphosa suggests Starlink as a solution, which raises questions about the underlying motives, says the writer. Image: Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto/AFP On May 21, we witnessed an embarrassing scene of the presidential delegation in the Oval Office. Patrick Gaspard, a former American ambassador in South Africa under the Barack Obama administration, explained that Trump had turned the meeting with Ramaphosa into a "shameful spectacle" and "savaged him with some phoney snuff film and brutal rhetoric" (Gaspard, 2025). This was purportedly done to remedy the very high already present tensions between the US and South Africa that have escalated since the Trump administration took office. Interestingly, just 48 hours later, Communications Minister Solly Malatsi gazetted a new direction of policy to ICASA, permitting Starlink and other foreign investors to "harmonise" current ICT sector requirements (Department of Communications & Digital Technologies, 2025). The regulations previously demanded that at least 30% of shares be held by historically disadvantaged individuals. Current ICT Sector Rules Due to the expansive and strategic nature of the telecoms sector – controlling how South Africans communicate, access information, and participate in the digital economy – the previous requirement for foreign telecommunications licensees to sell 30% of their local subsidiaries to historically disadvantaged groups ensured that black South Africans didn't just use these services, but owned and profited from the infrastructure serving their communities (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003). ICASA's Role ICASA is the regulator of South Africa's telecommunications sector, essentially the gatekeeper that licenses all companies wanting to provide internet, phone, or TV services (Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Act, 2000). Because they enforce the ownership requirements, they're the ones who need to ease these regulations to make room for Starlink and other prospective foreign investors. As the Department of Communications & Digital Technologies noted, this wouldn't just benefit one company but would apply to all ICT companies, including those from China and the Middle East (Department of Communications & Digital Technologies, 2025). Equity Equivalent and Ownership 'Workaround' The 'sidestep' or 'harmonising' commonly referred to speaks to Equity Equivalent programmes – this is when companies are permitted to avoid giving up ownership but instead can contribute through community projects worth the same value as what that 30% ownership would have been. This usually takes the form of skills and training development, job creation, and supporting black-owned suppliers (Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, 2019). In 2019, the South African government piloted this approach through the automotive industry, where BMW, Ford, and Toyota did not have to give up ownership but instead committed to ploughing back through skills development and funding for black-owned suppliers (Automotive Industry Development Centre, 2019). Essentially, companies keep their investments, shareholding, and decision-making power, but offer communities the equivalent value of what they would have given up in ownership. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Aphelele Mtwecu, a proud member of the Activate Change Drivers Network and a2016 Activator. She is a content writer, activist Image: Supplied Contentions of Timelines and Due Processes So, how exactly does a presidential delegation meeting occur on Wednesday and have a new policy gazetted by Friday? The credibility of how this gazette played out is questionable. According to reports, the delegation included three other officials who were familiar with what Starlink would bring to the South African economy, granted this wasn't a spontaneous engagement. However, here is the problem: South Africa, with all its flaws, values and upholds consultative processes. A major economic policy shift such as this one would normally require public hearings or parliamentary reviews to protect the Republic from exactly these kinds of overnight decisions (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000). In this matter of harmonising BEE laws, regardless of existing contentions, this is an important historical policy that would impact our state of affairs deeply. It is further alarming how these kinds of events occur under the supposed sensitivity of the GNU government, where consensus-building across coalition parties should be central to major decisions. Unless it is the citizens who are blindfolded, and we simply do not know there was a prior agreement between parties to fast-track this change. Pseudo Altruism According to Statistics South Africa's latest general household survey, only 1.7% of rural households had an Internet connection at home in 2023 (Statistics South Africa, 2024). This devastating statistic has become the most compelling reason for the urgency of Starlink's operations in South Africa. As we understand it, Starlink has been piloted in some South African rural communities and has indeed yielded positive results for farmers as well as the education sector. The need is undeniable – rural communities lack the same coverage and access compared to urban areas. This digital divide is real and valid. Currently, technology optimisation is everything, especially in education, and for children to have access to connectivity is critical. But here's my question: out of all telecommunications services globally, can we prove that Starlink is the crème de la crème of satellite coverage? Have other avenues been exhausted before we convinced ourselves we had no choice? And if Starlink had indeed piloted programs in rural areas and seen the benefits, why wouldn't they yield further to South Africa's legislative and broader economic equity by accepting a BEE partner under ICT BEE laws? If rural connectivity was so important to them, why was this condition such a deal breaker? In these cases, material interests and profit margins trump everything else. And that makes me question their philanthropic intent "to save rural communities" entirely. Digital Inclusion* (*Economic Participation Sold Separately) The Department of Communications highlighted a significant issue, emphasising that the policy is not just about Starlink but is intended to address the growing digital divide. However, I do not agree with the methodology. We must ensure that our approach to digital inclusion does not compromise future sustainability. We have identified the need, but here's the broader question: how can you give a society tablets when they cannot even harvest food to sustain themselves and their families? How is this different from any other interventions that have squandered the hopes of our people, only to leave them hanging with false hope and shattered dreams? What's the point of digital inclusion without economic participation? We're essentially saying to rural youth: 'Here's access to the internet, but the profits from connecting you will flow to foreign shareholders.' This is the bread vs. bandwidth dilemma – we're trading long-term ownership for short-term access, creating dependency rather than empowerment. Communications Minister Solly Malatsi gazetted a new direction of policy to ICASA, permitting Starlink and other foreign investors to "harmonise" current ICT sector requirements (Department of Communications & Digital Technologies, 2025). Image: X / IOLGraphics Racial Capitalism in Real Time We are not oblivious to the sequence of events unfolding in the terrain we find ourselves in. The actions of certain global leaders have influenced policies that affect digital inclusion and economic participation. After our ambassador was dismissed, claims emerged about land confiscation in South Africa, which were used to support allegations of land grabs and genocide. He curtain-calls this performance to the globe, summons 'Cupcake' to the Oval Office, and at the brink of our president making pleas for him to stop, the Trump-Musk axis asks: 'What will you give us in return?' Our president suggests Starlink as a solution, which raises questions about the underlying motives. But these dynamics of power and racial manipulation speak deeply to what Cedric Robinson identified as racial capitalism, where racism isn't incidental to capitalism, but fundamental to its operation (Robinson, 2000). As Robin D.G. Kelley reflects on Robinson's work, this system not only exploits black labour but also uses black societies as laboratories for testing how far capital can push without resistance (Kelley, 2017). Du Bois saw this clearly: the colour line isn't just about prejudice, it's about who gets to own, who gets to profit, and who gets relegated to being grateful for scraps (Du Bois, 1903). We need to critically examine these issues, as seen in 2019 when BMW, Ford, and Toyota used 'equity equivalent' programs to avoid ownership responsibilities. But where's the evidence that this worked? Are there measurably more black-owned automotive companies today? Now they want us to accept the same promise in telecoms, dressed up as digital inclusion.
