A federal judge delivered a blistering rebuke to former President Donald Trump’s administration for keeping its cards too close to the chest in a case involving the mistaken deportation of a Maryland resident now imprisoned in El Salvador.
At the center of the dispute is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man with legal status in the U.S., who was forcibly removed from the country in March despite a court order that should have shielded him. Now trapped in a Salvadoran prison, his fate has become a flashpoint in a broader clash between the judiciary and an administration determined to keep its immigration agenda under wraps.
During a hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis didn’t hold back. She accused the administration of offering “an exercise in utter frustration” instead of complying with her directive to “facilitate” Garcia’s return. Instead of transparency, she got vague statements, redactions, and the invocation of the notorious “state secrets” privilege.
One particularly damning moment came when Xinis cited a public statement by then-Homeland Security head Kristi Noem, who flatly declared that Garcia “will never be allowed to return to the United States.” The judge was blunt: “That sounds to me like an admission. That’s about as clear as it can get.”
The Trump-era Justice Department claimed it couldn’t reveal much, citing national security. But Xinis wasn’t buying it. “You have not given me anything,” she said, “that I can really say: ‘Okay, I understand what of the plaintiffs’ requests or the court’s order poses a reasonable danger to diplomatic relations.’”
Meanwhile, Garcia’s legal team called out the administration’s double-speak. “It’s deeply disturbing,” said attorney Andrew Rossman, “that they claim to be in compliance with the court’s order while senior officials publicly say the opposite.”
The U.S. Supreme Court had already weighed in, urging the administration to explain what steps it had taken to comply. But even that hasn’t loosened the government’s grip on the details. At the latest hearing, government lawyer Jonathan Guynn insisted some information simply couldn’t be shared.
Xinis wasn’t moved. She pointed out that the record already reflects that Garcia’s deportation was a mistake. “The attempt to revise that is going to be exceptionally difficult,” she said.
With little clarity and mounting legal tension, the case has become a symbol of institutional friction. The Trump-era DOJ accuses the courts of interfering in foreign policy, while the courts see executive defiance of judicial authority.
For now, Judge Xinis is giving the government one more chance to back up its claims—this time, she hopes, with something that resembles actual evidence.
