What the legacy media is telling Americans about the situation of the “Maryland man” Kilmar Abrego Garcia, describing him as an “innocent man” “wrongly deported” by the Trump Administration, adding to the frame an accusation that the Administration is defying the Supreme Court (and thus represents an authoritarian threat to America), grossly misrepresents the facts of the case.
The Washington Post describes Garcia as a “Maryland man mistakenly deported to a mega-prison,” emphasizing his family life and disabled child, while omitting Garcia’s lack of permanent residency and the Administration’s MS-13 allegations (Garcia is seeking asylum in American to protect him from Barrio 18, the bitter rival gang of MS-13). Similarly, NPR reporting has Trump defying a direct mandate to bring him back, ignoring the Supreme Court’s distinction between “facilitate” and “effectuate,” as well as the Court’s deference to executive authority.
The Supreme Court decision in Noem v. Garcia is not in fact a rebuke of Trump’s actions, albeit there are concerns about due process, but rather affirms Presidential powers and scolds the federal judge who ordered Garcia’s return, Judge Paula Xinis, for overstepping her authority.
The characterization of Garcia as a “Maryland man” obscures the fact that Garcia is an El Salvadorian citizen, and while a 2019 order allowed him to live and work in the US, it does not confer permanent residency or a path to citizenship. The Supreme Court did not order the Trump Administration to return Garcia to the United States. Instead, the Court ordered the Administration to facilitate Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody and to ensure his case is handled as it would have been absent deportation—thus focusing on due process rather than mandating his return to the US.
The Court ruled 9-0 that the district court’s order that Trump “effectuate” the return of Garcia exceeded its authority. Moreover, the Court did not say that Trump had to facilitate the return of Garcia to the United States. Since Garcia is not a citizen, he has no right to return to the United States. The Court sent the order back to the district court to clarify the directive.
The Supreme Court two-page order (Noem v. Garcia) was in response to an emergency request to overturn a Maryland district court injunction. The April 4 injunction ordered the Administration to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Garcia to the US by April 7, citing the need to restore due process after his “unlawful deportation” to El Salvador.
After failing to secure a stay from the Fourth Circuit, The Administration appealed to the Supreme Court, admitting Garcia’s deportation violated an order barring his removal to El Salvador, but that Garcia, an alleged MS-13 member, which the Trump Administration has designated a terrorist organization, was lawfully removable, albeit not to El Salvador. The Trump Administration also argued that Judge Xinis exceeded her authority by directing diplomatic efforts, which are reserved for the executive branch under Article II of the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court partially granted the Administration’s request, voiding the expired deadline but upholding the spirit of the injunction pending clarification. Crucially, the Court found the order to “facilitate” his release from prison appropriate but deemed the demand to “effectuate” his return vague and potentially beyond judicial authority. The Court ordered the district court judge to clarify the order while upholding the Executive’s foreign affairs powers.
Judge Xinis revised her order, removing “effectuate,” and directing the Administration to take “all available steps” to return Garcia. She also demanded a declaration by 11:30 am the next day detailing Garcia’s status and the Administration’s efforts to comply. The Administration, citing the order’s late issuance, missed the deadline arguing that foreign policy cannot be rushed. Unpersuaded, Judge Xinis found the government noncompliant and ordered daily declarations on Garcia’s status.
The media is making it appear as if Trump is defying the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court did not rule that Trump was noncompliant—the district court judge whose order she was required to revise did.
Garcia’s legal team sought further relief, requesting his immediate release from Salvadoran custody, travel arrangements to the United States, discovery of US-El Salvador detention agreements, and contempt proceedings for the missed deadline. Judge Xinis has yet to rule on the new motion but given her strict stance and the Administration’s limited compliance may grant Garcia significant relief.
The Administration continues to insist that such judicial orders infringe on the President’s Article II powers. It nonetheless responded to the court and Garcia’s legal team by confirming Garcia’s detention in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). This was in keeping with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which directed to the Administration to “be prepared to share what it can” about steps taken implies an expectation of some action.
El Salvador has made significant strides in reducing crime, particularly violent crime, transforming itself from one of the world’s most dangerous countries to a regional model for public safety. Long plagued by gang violence from groups like MS-13 and Barrio 18, El Salvador saw homicide rates peak at 103 per 100,000 people in 2015, earning it the label “murder capital of the world.” Since President Nayib Bukele took office in 2019, crime rates have plummeted.
Bukele’s response has put El Salvador at the top of the list of those countries with the highest rate of incarceration in the world. As a result, by 2024, the homicide rate dropped to 1.9 per 100,000, a 98 percent decrease from 2015 and the lowest in over 50 years. Polls show 80-90 percent approval for Bukele’s policies, driven by relief from gang terror.
Bukele’s refusal to release Garcia, citing his alleged MS-13 ties, aligns with his domestic anti-gang stance, complicating US judicial orders and highlighting the intersection of US immigration policy and El Salvador’s security model.
Readers may not recall the same hysteria during the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton administration addressed rising gang violence, including by MS-13, through a combination of domestic law enforcement and the deportation of gang members. I do (I have written about it).
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), signed by Clinton, expanded grounds for deportation, lowered the threshold for crimes warranting removal, and mandated detention for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies, including gang-related offenses. The reason that these actions are largely forgotten is because Clinton is a Democrat.
The law facilitated the deportation of thousands of Central American gang members, particularly MS-13 members, to El Salvador and other countries. Many were US-raised Salvadoran immigrants who had joined MS-13 in cities like Los Angeles. These deportations fueled MS-13’s growth in Central America, as deportees, lacking reintegration support, reconstituted gangs in El Salvador, contributing to its high homicide rates by the 2000s.
Critics argue Clinton’s policies prioritized short-term US crime reduction over long-term regional stability, exacerbating violence abroad. But the result of Clinton’s actions compelled El Salvador to crack down on gang violence—rather than exporting their criminal element to America. It also sharply reduced crime in America.
Headlines calling Garcia a “Maryland man” and “wrongly deported father” who is detained in a notorious prison in a Third World country are designed to evoke sympathy and drive engagement by simplifying his status, emphasizing his family ties, and implying his mistreatment in El Salvador.
All this is for propaganda purposes. Legacy media outlets oppose Trump’s immigration policies (recall the moral panic manufactured during Trump’s first term), framing the case as evidence of executive overreach or cruelty to align with the media’s anti-Trump sentiment. We therefore must critically question whether the media’s focus on Garcia’s “innocence” ignores legitimate security concerns raised by the Administration—and obscures the President’s responsibility as chief magistrate to protect American citizens from criminal aliens.
I want to close by noting the April 7 ruling in the case J.G.G. v. Trump (April 7, 2025), where the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, lifted a DC judge’s block on Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members.
The district judge in question, James Boasberg, a noted anti-Trump figure, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking deportations under the Act and, usurping Article II powers, ordering flights to return—though two planes had already landed in El Salvador. The DC Circuit upheld Boasberg’s order on March 26, prompting the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court overruled the DC Circuit. The ruling allows deportations to continue, with detainees sent to El Salvador’s CECOT prison under a US agreement.
Noem v. Garcia and J.G.G. v. Trump are not directly linked but are thematically related in Trump’s focus on immigration enforcement and public safety. Both cases involve Trump’s 2025 deportation push, accusations of due process violations, and detentions in El Salvador’s CECOT prison. Garcia addresses an individual’s deportation under immigration law, while J.G.G. concerns mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
Crucially, both Supreme Court rulings upheld executive power while emphasizing the importance of due process. Both cases represent victories for the Trump Administration and his efforts to deport criminal aliens.
The media is desperate to manufacture another hysteria over immigration, but so far, the President’s responsibility to the American public and his Article II powers are being upheld by the highest court in the land.
And this just in: Judge Xinis in Abrego Garcia case says there’s no evidence Trump administration is following her orders. Why is this judge making demands on the Trump Administration after the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that demanding Trump return a citizen of El Salvador exceeds her authority and trespasses upon the President’s Article II powers?
This is a rank abuse of power. She acting as if she’s Queen of the Realm.
A few weeks ago I wrote an essay on the rise of the judicocracy (see The Judicocracy Problematic), which is a type of government where courts usurp the powers of legislatures and executives thus violating the separation of powers.
The attempt by judges to take over and thus effectively neutralize democracy has become an intolerable situation. Congress must act to reign in the judiciary. There must be legislation to curtail the use of universal injunctions and restraining orders. Congress needs to defund courts and act with haste to impeach judges that exceed their authority. This is not the rule of law, but tyranny under the cover of the law.
All this talk about a constitutional crisis? Judicial overreach is dragging the republic into one.
freedom and reason 