Fact-Checking the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego García
This article has drawn significant public concern due to the legal and moral implications surrounding the deportation of Kilmar Abrego García and others by the Trump administration under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Central to public inquiry is whether the Salvadoran government has credible evidence, if any, supporting their claim that Abrego García belongs to MS-13, and whether due process was followed in his forced removal.
Historical Context
The Alien Enemies Act is part of a series of laws passed in 1798, originally designed to handle threats during wartime. In modern immigration debates, it has resurfaced controversially, particularly when applied beyond officially declared wars. Kilmar Abrego García’s case, centering on an undocumented Salvadoran migrant deported despite a judge’s order, reflects broader historical tensions over the U.S. government’s use of executive power in immigration enforcement and national security.
Claim #1: The Salvadoran government has confirmed Kilmar Abrego García is a member of MS-13
This claim was repeated by Trump administration officials during legal proceedings. Specifically, Justice Department attorney Jonathan David Guynn stated that García is being detained in El Salvador “because they believe he’s a member of the MS-13 gang.” However, this assertion lacks credible documentation or corroboration from Salvadoran authorities. The article itself notes that the only documented basis for labeling García as an MS-13 affiliate was a 2019 “gang sheet” by a police detective in Prince George’s County, Maryland — a source later discredited. No court proceedings were held to allow García to respond to the accusation, and no official Salvadoran criminal charges have been filed. Further weakening the claim, the Salvadoran prison to which he was transferred reportedly does not house gang members, contradicting the reason cited for his confinement. Without public evidence or a statement from the Salvadoran government independently verifying gang affiliation, this claim remains unsubstantiated.
Claim #2: Kilmar Abrego García was legally deported after exhausting due process
This claim is false. The Washington Post article clearly states that an immigration judge granted García humanitarian protection via “withholding of removal” in 2019 after finding his life would be in danger if returned to El Salvador. This legal protection prevents deportation. Despite this, García was forcibly put on a plane on March 15, in violation of multiple court orders — including one that explicitly forbade his removal. Federal Judge Paula Xinis and the Supreme Court also ruled that deportees have the right to bring claims through habeas corpus. The Justice Department has admitted that García’s deportation was the result of an “administrative error,” confirming that the deportation was unlawful. Therefore, the assertion that García was removed following lawful procedure is contradicted by both documented legal rulings and government admissions.
Claim #3: The Trump administration has taken extensive action to comply with court orders to return García
This claim is misleading. Although the Justice Department argues that it has produced “extensive information and documents” regarding actions taken, those materials have been largely withheld from public scrutiny under the “state secrets” privilege. In multiple hearings, federal judges expressed frustration at the administration’s lack of transparency. Judge Xinis expressed concern over repeated failures by Trump officials to provide basic responses during depositions, including a repeated pattern of “I don’t knows.” She emphasized that discovery efforts had been obstructed under unsupported claims of privilege that may not apply. Additionally, no documented action has shown that the administration made any direct request or diplomatic effort for García’s release. Thus, while some documentation may exist, the lack of transparency and judicial criticism strongly indicate that the administration failed to meaningfully comply with court mandates.
Conclusion
A close analysis of the claims made throughout the article reveals that several of the U.S. government’s justifications surrounding García’s deportation are either unsupported, misleading, or contradicted by official records. No verifiable evidence has been provided publicly by El Salvador confirming that García is a gang member. The deportation itself violated express legal protection granted in 2019 and defied court orders, refuting claims of lawful process. Despite the Justice Department’s claims of compliance, federal judges have consistently criticized the Trump administration for opacity and a lack of good faith efforts in returning García. Overall, the article accurately outlines the legal irregularities and unanswered questions tied to this case while suggesting bias in the government’s narrative rather than the reporting itself.
Empower Yourself to Fight Misinformation
Download the DBUNK app to instantly verify the news you read. Stay informed, be skeptical, and regain confidence in truth. Follow us on social media for real-time updates and crowd-sourced fact-checking!
Read the Original Reporting
Visit the original article at the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/05/16/kilmar-abrego-garcia-case-deportation-el-salvador/
