News
What to Know About the Deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador
Some of President Trump’s top aides on Monday misstated several key facts involving the deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador last month, blatantly contradicting other members of the administration who have maintained for weeks that his expulsion was an “administrative error.”
In remarks from the Oval Office and on television, Mr. Trump’s advisers suddenly declared that the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, had been lawfully sent to a prison in El Salvador.
The White House also sought to portray a recent Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case as a victory when in fact the decision was a nuanced one. It partly found in favor of Mr. Abrego Garcia while also leaving open a loophole for the administration to avoid bringing him back from El Salvador.
The efforts by the Trump administration to misrepresent the case came as President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador announced after a meeting with Mr. Trump that his government would not return Mr. Abrego Garcia to U.S. soil.
Here are some of the ways in which the White House has twisted the facts.
A top Trump adviser said Mr. Abrego Garcia had not been mistakenly deported.
When Mr. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant, was arrested while looking for work at a Home Depot in Maryland in 2019, a judge determined that he should not be deported to his homeland because he might face danger there. The ruling, known as a “withholding from removal” order, meant that he could stay in the United States with a measure of legal protection.
In March, however, he was suddenly pulled over by federal agents who accused him of being a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13 and inaccurately told him that his protected status in the country had changed. Within three days, he was on a plane with other migrants to a prison in El Salvador called CECOT, which is known for its human rights violations.
After Mr. Abrego Garcia’s family sued the government seeking his return, several Trump administration officials — including the United States solicitor general — made a rare admission: The White House had made a mistake when it deported Mr. Abrego Garcia.
But on Monday, Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top domestic policy adviser, abruptly changed course. He declared on Fox News that Mr. Abrego Garcia had not in fact been wrongfully deported.
“He was not mistakenly sent to El Salvador,” Mr. Miller said, adding, “This was the right person sent to the right place.”
The sudden turnabout was remarkable not only because Mr. Miller, who is not a lawyer, contradicted previous assertions by some within the administration, but also because he appeared to go against the findings of the Supreme Court. In their recent ruling in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case, the justices immediately stated that the government itself had taken the position that “the removal to El Salvador was the result of an ‘administrative error.’”
That view had already been advanced in court papers by a top official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and by D. John Sauer, Mr. Trump’s newly appointed solicitor general. It was also offered during a court hearing this month by Erez Reuveni, a Justice Department lawyer who was handling the case — that is, until he was fired this weekend, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Mr. Miller blamed a Justice Department lawyer for admitting the deportation was wrong.
In one of the more remarkable moments in his appearance on Fox News, Mr. Miller blamed Mr. Reuveni — and only Mr. Reuveni — for having planted the idea that Mr. Abrego Garcia’s deportation had been in error.
“A D.O.J. lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat, put into a filing, incorrectly, that this was a mistaken removal,” Mr. Miller said.
That assertion, however, flew in the face of the fact that other Trump officials had said the exact same thing.
One of them was Mr. Sauer, a top-ranking Justice Department official. Another was Robert Cerna, the acting field office director for enforcement and removal operations at ICE.
Early in the case, Mr. Cerna submitted a sworn declaration about Mr. Abrego Garcia’s deportation, and made clear that it was a mistake.
“This removal was an error,” he said.
Moreover, just a few weeks before he was fired, Mr. Reuveni was praised as a “top-notched” prosecutor by his superiors in an email announcing a recent promotion.
The attorney general did not fully explain what the courts have said about Mr. Abrego Garcia and MS-13.
Mr. Trump and his top aides have repeatedly accused Mr. Abrego Garcia of being a member of MS-13. They have also said at times that he is a terrorist — but only because the administration recently designated MS-13 as a terrorist organization.
In the Oval Office on Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said that two courts — an immigration court and an appellate court — had “ruled” that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13. But Ms. Bondi’s statement was a bit misleading.
To be clear, Mr. Abrego Garcia has never been charged with — let alone convicted of — being a member of the gang. But during his deportation proceedings, some evidence was introduced that he belonged to MS-13, and judges decided it was enough to keep him in custody while the matter was resolved.
But other judges have found the same evidence to be lacking.
When Judge Paula Xinis, who has been overseeing the efforts to bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the United States, considered the accusations that he was a gang member, she decided they were less than persuasive.
“The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived,” Judge Xinis wrote in an order last week.
In its daily update to Judge Xinis outlining what steps it has taken to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States, the Justice Department, submitting its filing more than an hour late, echoed many of the recalcitrant remarks that administration officials made in the Oval Office. It included the assertion that in 2019, a judge had determined that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13.
Mr. Miller portrayed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a clear victory for the administration.
When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case last week, its findings were complicated and rather ambiguous.
The justices endorsed Judge Xinis’s previous order that required the administration to “facilitate” the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia. But they stopped short of actually ordering his return, indicating that even federal courts may not have the authority to require the executive branch to do so.
And yet Mr. Miller, in his appearance on Fox News and in the Oval Office, portrayed the ruling as an unmitigated victory for the Trump administration.
He said, for instance, that the Supreme Court’s instructions that the White House had to “facilitate” getting Mr. Abrego Garcia out of custody meant that Trump officials could assume an entirely passive stance toward his release.
“If El Salvador voluntarily sends him back,” Mr. Miller said on Fox News, “we wouldn’t block him at the airport.”
But whether that position flies with Judge Xinis remains to be seen. She has scheduled a hearing to discuss what the government should do for Tuesday in Federal District Court in Maryland.
Mr. Miller also seized upon a small portion of the justices’ ruling that directed Judge Xinis to take the first crack at telling the White House what to do. The justices cautioned Judge Xinis that as she considered that issue, her ultimate decision needed to be made “with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”
The Justice Department used that line in a court filing on Sunday to suggest that the courts were powerless to dictate how the White House should act because the president alone has broad powers to handle foreign policy.
“The federal courts have no authority to direct the executive branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner,” lawyers for the department wrote. “That is the ‘exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.’”
Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
Hon. James Comer
Hon. Robert Garcia November 3, 2025 Page 2
compel Attorney General Bondi to release what you have stated is a large trove of unseen files, which the public to date is still waiting to see released.
Your October 22 letter does not provide a persuasive rationale for why deposing the Clintons is required to fulfill the mandate of your investigation, particularly when what little information they have may be efficiently obtained in writing.
You state that your investigation into the “mismanagement” of the Epstein and Maxwell investigations and prosecutions requires the depositions of three individuals: former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Clinton, and former Attorney General William Barr – who was serving in the first Trump Administration when Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in federal custody. Compounding this inexplicable choice of deponents, you also have chosen not to depose the dozens of individuals whose links to Mr. Epstein have been publicly documented.
My clients have been private citizens for the last 24 and 12 years, respectively. President Clinton’s term ended six (6) years before allegations surfaced against Mr. Epstein. Former Secretary of State Clinton’s position was in no way related to law enforcement and is completely afield of any aspect of the Epstein matter. While neither of my clients have anything to offer for the stated purposes of the Committee’s investigation, subpoenaing former Secretary Clinton is on its face both purposeless and harassing. I set forth in my October 6 letter the facts that she did not know Epstein, did not travel with him, and had no dealings with him. Indeed, when I met with your staff to learn your basis for including former Secretary Clinton, none was given beyond wanting to ask if she had ever spoken with her husband about this matter. Setting aside the plainly relevant consideration of marital privilege, this is an entirely pretextual basis for compelling former Secretary Clinton to appear personally in this matter.
It is incumbent on the Committee to address the most basic questions regarding the basis for singling out the Clintons, particularly when there is no obvious or apparent rationale for it, given the mandate of the Committee’s investigation. Your October 22 letter does not provide such a justification. And your previous statements, belied by the facts, that President Clinton is a “prime suspect” (for something) because of visits to Epstein’s island betokens bias, not fairness. You said, on August 11:
“Everybody in America wants to know what went on in Epstein Island, and we’ve all heard reports that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor there, so he’s a prime suspect to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee.”
“1
Regrettably, such statements are not the words of an impartial and dispassionate factfinder. In fact, President Clinton has never visited Epstein’s island. He has repeatedly stated that, the Secret Service has corroborated that denial, Ghislaine Maxwell’s recent testimony to Deputy Attorney General Blanche reconfirmed this, as did the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre in her
Fields, “Comer: Bill Clinton ‘Prime Suspect’ in Epstein Investigation,” The Hill (Aug. 12, 2025).
A cotton field in north Louisiana.
Dylan Hawkins
hide caption
toggle caption
Dylan Hawkins
NEW ORLEANS – James Davis had the best year in his entire farming career this year.
The third-generation Black row crop farmer estimated picking almost 1,300 pounds of cotton, an average of 50 bushels of soybeans, and an average of around 155 bushels of corn on 2,500 acres of his farmland in northeast Louisiana.
But with U.S. commodities facing steep retaliatory tariffs overseas, he says he and many other farmers can’t sell their crops for enough to cover the loans they take out to fund the growing season.
The tariffs, Davis said, are making it almost impossible to survive.
“To have that kind of yield and still not be able to pay all your bills, that tells you something is broken in the farming industry,” Davis said.
In order to plan for next year, farmers need relief now, Davis said. At a recent meeting with his banker, the bank projected 2026 revenues in order to secure crop loans, and the cash flow math wasn’t adding up — the farm’s expected income wasn’t enough to cover operating loans once input costs, equipment notes, land rent and insurance premiums were factored in.
The Trump administration announced just this week a new $12 billion package of one-time bridge payments for American farmers like Davis, aimed at helping them recover from temporary market disruptions and high production costs.
“This relief will provide much needed certainty as they get this year’s harvest to market and look ahead to next year’s crops,” Trump said during a White House roundtable event. “It’ll help them continue their efforts to lower food prices for American families.”
Davis says that type of help can’t come soon enough.
“Without bailouts, it is hard to make crop loans work on paper,” he said in an interview with NPR on Monday.
James Davis asks a question at a panel on farm finances at the National Black Growers Council conference in New Orleans on Dec. 10, 2025. Davis is a third-generation Black row crop farmer who said that despite having the best year he’s ever had in his farming career, he’s still struggling to pay his bills.
Drew Hawkins/Gulf States Newsroom
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Hawkins/Gulf States Newsroom
At the same time, however, the Trump Administration dismantled decades-old USDA programs designed to assist Black farmers by eliminating the “socially disadvantaged” designation, including programs like the 2501 Program, which many Black row-crop farmers rely on for access to credit, technical assistance, and conservation support that are otherwise difficult to secure at county-level USDA offices. The USDA did not respond to requests for interviews or comment.
Those supports, experts said, were designed to help smaller farmers and farmers of color remain on the land.
Welcome relief may not come in time
The Farmer Bridge Assistance Program accounts for up to $11 billion of the newly announced package, and offers proportional payments to farmers growing major commodities, including row crops like soybeans, corn and cotton.
Payments are expected to begin by February of next year, and are designed to offset losses from the 2025 crop year.
For many farmers, that isn’t soon enough. While the bridge payment may help with crop loans, there are immediate bills due for many in the coming weeks.
“This needs to show up like Santa Claus underneath the Christmas tree, to be honest with you,” said PJ Haynie, a fifth-generation Black farmer with rice operations in Virginia and Arkansas and chairman of the National Black Growers Council, which met in New Orleans this week for its annual conference.
“Our landlords want their money by the end of the year — our seed and input and chemical and equipment companies that we have to make payments by the end of the year,” he said.
Some farmers may have relationships with bankers and companies that will work with them and extend payment deadlines a few months, Haynie said — others don’t. And farmers are grateful for any support they receive, but, Haynie said, the one-time bridge payments aren’t enough.
“They still won’t make us whole because of the losses that we’ve incurred because of the markets, the tariffs, the trade,” he said. “But every dollar helps.”
Farmers already face challenges like unpredictable weather, pests and stagnant commodity prices, as well as rising input costs including machinery and fertilizer purchases. “We plant and we pray,” as Haynie put it. Tariffs have only compounded those challenges.
Black farmers face additional challenges
Black farmers like Haynie and Davis make up less than 2% of all U.S. farmers — and Black row-crop farmers, like those at this week’s conference, are an even smaller slice of that.
“Our herd is small,” Haynie said, “and if we can protect the herd, the herd will grow.”
Black farmers have asked the federal government for loan relief and other assistance for decades. A century ago, Black farmers owned at least 16 million acres of land. Today, Haynie said they hold around 2 million.
Following the Civil War, Black Americans were promised “40 acres and a mule” by the federal government, but many say that promise never came to pass.
Over the course of the past 100 years, the amount of Black-owned farmland dropped by 90%, according to Data for Progress, due to higher rates of loan and credit denials, lack of legal and industry support and “outright acts of violence and intimidation.”
Advocates say the inability for Black farmers to get a start, and later the sharp drop in farming population, is in part due to what they call USDA’s discriminatory lending practices, and often specific loan officers’ biases. The agency is the subject of an ongoing discrimination class action lawsuit by Black farmers and additional litigation due to those and other allegations.
Much of that history plays into how Black farmers approach the Trump administration.
“The Black row crop farm community needs the support of the administration,” Haynie said. “I can’t … buy an $800,000 combine to sell $4 corn. The math doesn’t math on that.”
All farmers — “Black or white” — are responding to the same depressed prices, he said. But Black farmers, he argues, already a small percentage of total U.S. growers, and often operating at a smaller scale, have less buffer to absorb sudden market shocks.
As farmers look at their projected costs next year, economists say they’re also navigating deep uncertainty in global markets.
“I think that a lot of farmers are still very much looking at the next year with some trepidation, thinking that their margins will continue to be very, very tight,” said Joseph Glauber, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington D.C.
U.S. trade with China — historically the top buyer of American soybeans and other row crops — has not rebounded to pre–trade war levels despite a new agreement. Meanwhile, Glauber said, countries like Brazil have expanded production dramatically, seizing market share during the trade war and becoming the world’s top soybean exporter — a long-term structural shift that U.S. growers now have to compete against.
Finis Stribling III (left) and John Green II (right) take a break during the National Black Growers Council conference in New Orleans on Dec. 10, 2025. Both Stribling and Green were plagued by bad weather at the start of this year’s growing season, and both said tariffs have only made things harder.
Drew Hawkins/Gulf States Newsroom
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Hawkins/Gulf States Newsroom
He added that crops grown in the Mississippi River Delta, such as cotton and soybeans, have been hit especially hard by low prices and retaliatory tariffs.
Finis Stribling III farms 800 acres of cotton, rice, corn, soybeans and wheat in Arkansas and Tennessee. At the National Black Growers Council’s conference, he told NPR 2025 was another year of what he calls “farming in deficit.”
“We had too much rain early, then drought,” he said. “And when you finally get a crop in the field, the price support isn’t strong enough to cover the cost of production.”
Sitting next to him during a lunch break at the conference, another Arkansas row crop farmer John Lee II, put it bluntly: “What I’m worried about is next year. What do we do in 2026 when we go to the bank to try and get a loan? I’m concerned about the notion of going to the bank this upcoming year and not being able to get a loan because we can’t make the loan cash flow.”
Both also said the new tariff relief will help — but not nearly to the degree many outside agriculture may think.
“From the outside looking in, non-farm community, you say $12 billion seems like a lot of money,” Stribling said. “But when you look at the cost of production and the money that’s spent in agriculture, $12 billion is really just a drop in the bucket. It’s almost like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.”
More than 400 law enforcement personnel have been deployed as police search for the suspect in a shooting at Brown University in Rhode Island in which two students were killed and nine wounded, US officials said.
The Ivy League university in Providence remained in lockdown early on Sunday, several hours after a suspect with a firearm entered a building where students were taking exams on Saturday. Streets around the campus were packed with emergency vehicles hours after the shooting, and security was heightened around the city as law enforcement agencies continued their manhunt.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
The suspect remained at large, officials said, as police worked with agents from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to search streets and buildings around the campus to find the individual.
Saturday’s shooting is the second major incident of gun violence on a university campus this week.
Providence deputy police chief Timothy O’Hara said the suspect had not been identified.
Officials said they would release a video of the suspect, a male possibly in his 30s and dressed in black, who O’Hara said may have been wearing a mask. He said officials had retrieved shell casings from the scene of the shooting, but that police were not prepared to release more details of the attack.
Providence Mayor Brett Smiley has confirmed that two students were killed and nine people were injured in the attack.
At a news conference, Smiley said university leaders became aware of the shooting at about 4:05pm local time (21:05 GMT), when emergency responders received a 911 call.
Smiley declined to identify the shooting victims, citing the ongoing investigation. However, he sought to reassure the community, despite a shelter-in-place order for the Brown campus and the surrounding neighbourhood.
“We have no reason to believe there are any additional threats at this time,” he said.
The university’s president, Christina Paxton, explained she had been on a flight to Washington, DC, when she learned of the shooting. She immediately returned to Providence to attend a night-time news conference.
“This is a day that we hoped never would come to our community. It is deeply devastating for all of us,” Paxton said in a written statement.
At the news conference, Paxton said she was told the victims were students.
Suspect remains at large
At approximately 4:22pm local time (21:22 GMT), the university issued its first emergency update, warning that there was an armed man near the Barus and Holley engineering and physics building.
“Lock doors, silence phones and stay hidden until further notice,” the university said in its update.
“Remember: RUN, if you are in the affected location, evacuate safely if you can; HIDE, if evacuation is not possible, take cover; FIGHT, as a last resort, take action to protect yourself.”
Upon arriving at the scene, law enforcement swept the building, according to Providence police’s O’Hara.
“They did a systematic search of the building. However, no suspect was located at that time,” O’Hara said.
The university had to withdraw an early announcement that a suspect had been apprehended, writing, “Police do not have a suspect in custody and continue to search for suspect(s).”
US President Donald Trump published a similar retraction on his online platform, Truth Social, after erroneously posting at about 5:44pm (22:44 GMT) that a suspect had been detained.
Mayor Smiley said there were 400 law enforcement officers in the area to search for the suspect.
He also encouraged witnesses to come forward with any information about the shooting.
The seventh-oldest university in the US, Brown is considered part of the prestigious Ivy League, a cluster of private research colleges in the northeast. Its student body numbers 11,005, according to its website.
On December 9, Kentucky State University in the southern city of Frankfort also experienced gunfire on campus, killing one student and leaving a second critically injured.
The suspect in that case was identified as Jacob Lee Bard, the parent of a student at the school.
MN fraudsters blew taxpayer cash on luxuries out of reach for most Americans, feds say
Invasive pest never before seen in North America threatens Texas food supply, officials warn
Miami in political crosshairs: Democrat hunts historic upset against Trump-backed candidate
Train pushes car quarter-mile on tracks; 82-year-old driver suffers minor injuries
Lions no longer control own destiny to postseason after loss to Rams
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Stance on Epstein Testimony Nov. 3
Small Business Administration unveils new initiative to roll back federal regulations
Analysis: Trump’s policies set to widen EU-US innovation gap
With federal relief on the horizon, Black farmers worry it won’t come soon enough
Trump’s election win filled Hamas with ‘fear,’ hostage held like ‘slave’ for 505 days recounts
-
Alaska1 week agoHowling Mat-Su winds leave thousands without power
-
Texas1 week agoTexas Tech football vs BYU live updates, start time, TV channel for Big 12 title
-
Washington6 days agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa1 week agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Miami, FL1 week agoUrban Meyer, Brady Quinn get in heated exchange during Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami CFP discussion
-
Iowa2 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Cleveland, OH1 week agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans
