Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to a crowd of people who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Baltimore on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Friday identified the West African nation of Liberia as the location for the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, noting his deportation could come as soon as Oct. 31.
In a Friday court filing in the District of Maryland, the Department of Justice argued that Liberia is a close partner with the United States and that the federal government has received assurances from Liberia that Abrego Garcia will not be harmed if he is deported there. They added that Abrego Garcia, who has a wife and family in Maryland, has not expressed fear of being removed to Liberia.
“Although Petitioner has identified more than twenty countries that he purports to fear would persecute or torture him if he were removed there, Liberia is not on that list,” according to the filing.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his Maryland case could not be immediately reached for comment.
The new filing comes shortly after attorneys for Abrego Garcia in a separate case in Tennessee this week requested to subpoena Trump DOJ official Todd Blanche in connection with Abrego Garcia’s claim that his criminal case by the Trump administration is vindictive. That hearing is set to start Nov. 4.
Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to those charges, which accuse him of the human trafficking of immigrants in an incident stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee.
Detention challenged
Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation cast a spotlight on the president’s aggressive immigration crackdown, is challenging his detention on the grounds that the Trump administration is using his imprisonment as punishment rather than for the purpose of removal.
Abrego Garcia has stated he is willing to be deported to Costa Rica, which has agreed to accept the longtime Maryland man as a refugee.
Because Abrego Garcia has deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador, the Trump administration must find a third country that is willing to accept him and a country where Abrego Garcia believes he will not face harm or persecution.
The Trump administration so far has floated sending Abrego Garcia to one of three nations in Africa — Ghana, Eswatini and Uganda.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis found little evidence the Trump administration has made any effort to remove Abrego Garcia either to the southern African nation of Eswatini or Costa Rica.
At that hearing, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys told Xinis they have not received an answer from the federal government as to why officials won’t remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica.
Detained in Pennsylvania
Xinis is currently mulling whether or not to order the release of Abrego Garcia, who is detained at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Pennsylvania.
Any indefinite stay would likely be unconstitutional, per a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that does not allow for immigrants to be detained longer than six months if the federal government is making no efforts to remove them.
In March, Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, where he detailed his experience of psychological and physical torture.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels and GOP attorney general candidate Eric Toney hold a press conference at the Milwaukee Police Association in this 2022 photo. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, a Republican, announced Tuesday he’s running for a second time to unseat Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.
The 41-year-old Toney has been the DA in Fond du Lac County since 2012. He ran against Kaul in 2022, losing by 35,000 votes. Kaul, a Democrat, recently announced he would be running for a third term as attorney general, ending speculation that he would run for governor after Gov. Tony Evers announced his retirement.
In a news release, Toney said he decided to run again after having open heart surgery two years ago.
“By the grace of God — and years of running — my heart held on,” Toney said. “That clarity led me here: if I could still make a difference for Wisconsin, I would. After seven years of broken promises and political spin in the Attorney General’s office, it’s time for change.”
In the campaign announcement, Toney said he would prioritize supporting law enforcement officers, reducing violent crime in Milwaukee and being more aggressive in prosecuting drug crimes.
“As your Top Cop, I will stand up for every Wisconsinite, enforce the law, and bring conservative, common-sense leadership back to the DOJ,” he said. “That’s what Wisconsinites expect and deserve.”
The Wisconsin attorney general is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state, responsible for overseeing state law enforcement agencies, enforcing state laws as varied as water quality rules and election laws and defending state agencies in court. This year, Kaul has been especially active in joining multi-state lawsuits against Trump administration policies.
Voting carrels set up at Madison's Hawthorne Library on Election Day 2022. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
The Wisconsin Department of Justice on Monday filed an appeal of a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge’s decision to require that state election officials conduct an intensive search for registered voters who aren’t citizens.
Judge Michael Maxwell’s Oct. 6 ruling required that the Wisconsin Elections Commission cross reference its voter registration list against the state Department of Transportation’s records to determine people’s citizenship status when they applied for a driver’s license or state ID. He also ordered that WEC and local election clerks stop accepting new voter registrations without obtaining proof of citizenship — though that portion of the ruling was put on hold pending the appeal.
Under current law, people registering to vote must affirm they are U.S. citizens but are not required to provide proof. However, lying about citizenship status while registering to vote is a crime.
Fears of non-citizen voting have frequently been raised by Republicans in recent years who, since 2020, have expressed skepticism of election administration. The initial Waukesha County lawsuit was brought by a pair of right-wing election conspiracy theorists.
While claims of non-citizen voting revolve around the threat that the issue could swing an election result and occasionally cases are found and prosecuted, there is no evidence that non-citizens vote in substantial enough numbers to influence election results in Wisconsin or anywhere across the country.
In the appeal, filed in the Madison-based District IV, the DOJ argued that the ruling “reshapes Wisconsin election law” while leaving many details vague and potentially violating other laws.
“The circuit court’s decision and order drastically alters voter registration and elections in Wisconsin, violates state law, and threatens voting rights,” the appeal states.
Lead by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, the filing states that Maxwell’s requirement to match data with Department of Transportation records would be based on data that’s up to eight years old, which could result in the disenfranchisement of people who were legal residents when they applied for their driver’s license but have since become citizens with the right to vote.
The appeal also argues that Maxwell’s ruling orders local election officials to change their practices even though they weren’t a party to the lawsuit and does not outline what “proof of citizenship” election officials should use to register people to vote.
“The court issued this sweeping relief despite no evidence of injury to Respondents: they speculated about the risk of vote dilution by illegal voters, but provided no evidence that a noncitizen had voted or registered to vote in Wisconsin,” the appeal states.
Rallygoers hold a sign that reads “Free Kilmar” during a rally Friday, Oct. 10, 2025, outside the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge in Maryland seemed inclined to order the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from immigration detention after oral arguments in court Friday, a potentially major development in the high-profile case.
After a more than six-hour hearing, District Judge Paula Xinis said a witness provided by the Justice Department showed little evidence that the Trump administration made an effort to remove Abrego Garcia to the southern African nation of Eswatini, and knew nothing about Abrego Garcia agreeing to be removed to Costa Rica.
The witness tapped by the Department of Justice was John Schultz, a deputy assistant director who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal operations.
After hearing from him, Xinis said keeping Abrego Garcia detained indefinitely would likely be unconstitutional. She said she would issue an order soon.
Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant whose wrongful deportation from Maryland put a spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown, is currently detained in Pennsylvania.
His attorneys have argued the Trump administration is using detention to punish Abrego Garcia because officials are not trying to remove him, even after Abrego Garcia agreed to be deported to Costa Rica.
‘Three strikes, you’re out’
Xinis expressed her frustration with Department of Justice attorneys for not providing a witness who would give clear answers on how immigration officials were handling the removal of Abrego Garcia.
“We’re getting to the three strikes, you’re out,” Xinis said.
Andrew J. Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, argued that if Immigration and Customs Enforcement is making no plans to immediately remove him, he should be released from detention.
He also argued that since March, when the Trump administration erroneously deported Abrego Garcia to a mega-prison in El Salvador, to the present, Abrego Garcia has been “in continuous containment” way past the six-month limit set by the Supreme Court regarding the detention of immigrants.
“The real aim of the government… is punitive, which is just to keep him incarcerated,” Rossman said. “It’s an overtly political purpose.”
The Rev. Robert Turner, right, leads an opening prayer on Friday, Oct. 10, 2025, outside the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, in support of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had a hearing in court. Standing next to Turner is Ama Frimpong, an attorney with the immigrant advocacy group CASA. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
Rossman told Xinis that he has not received an answer from the federal government as to why they will not remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, after he agreed to that proposal in August.
Xinis asked DOJ attorney Drew Ensign why Abrego Garcia hasn’t been removed to Costa Rica.
Ensign said that it was not clear to the government until Friday that Abrego Garcia had agreed to be removed to Costa Rica, because Abrego Garcia had previously expressed fear of being sent there.
Abrego Garcia changed his position after Costa Rica assured him he would be given refugee status.
“That is a new development that I will report back to people,” Ensign said.
Supreme Court ruling
A 2001 Supreme Court ruling does not allow for immigrants to be detained longer than six months if the federal government is making no efforts to remove them.
After 90 days without efforts to deport an immigrant, a challenge can be made because detaining that person any longer than a maximum of 180 days, or six months, would likely be unconstitutional, the high court found in Zadvydas v. Davis.
Earlier this week, Xinis seemed likely to order Abrego Garcia’s release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, where he has remained since late August.
Xinis, who also ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garica to the United States after she found his removal to El Salvador unlawful, is overseeing his habeas corpus petition, which challenges his detention.
Protesters rally outside the courthouse
Ahead of the hearing, dozens of supporters from the immigrant advocacy group CASA gathered in front of the District Court for the District of Maryland, chanting, “Somos todos Kilmar,” or, “We are all Kilmar.”
Rallygoers also chanted “What do we want? Justice!” “When do we want it? Now!”
Some also held signs urging the Trump administration to free Abrego Garcia.
Maryland Del. Nicole Williams, right, speaks in support of the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia during a rally Friday, Oct. 10, 2025, outside the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. Next to Williams is Maryland Del. Bernice Mireku-North. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
Two Maryland state legislators, Dels. Nicole Williams and Bernice Mireku-North, both Democrats, joined the rally.
Williams sponsored legislation during this year’s General Assembly session to prohibit local police from entering into certain agreements with ICE. On the last day of the legislative session in April, lawmakers passed a watered-down version of a bill that does not include the ban, the biggest loss for Maryland immigration advocates this year.
“We are going to be working on legislation with regards to masking by law enforcement officers,” Williams said. “We need to start treating everyone, I don’t care where you’re from, in a humane and decent way. And that’s what we’re going to be fighting for every single day until Kilmar is free and Kilmar comes home. So stop using Kilmar for your own political gain. Bring Kilmar home.”
White House involvement
Schultz, the DOJ witness, revealed that the White House had direct involvement in picking Uganda as a potential third country of removal for ICE’s deportation of Abrego Garcia.
The move was unusual because the State Department typically coordinates third-country removals for the Department of Homeland Security.
Schultz said the Homeland Security Council, which operates within the White House, notified ICE of Uganda as a third country of removal. The Homeland Security Council works with the National Security Council of the White House.
While Uganda is no longer a third country of removal for Abrego Garcia, ICE is trying to now remove him to Eswatini.
Schultz said Eswatini has not agreed to take Abrego Garcia, but discussions, which he said started on Wednesday, are underway.
“The discussions are continuing,” Schultz said.
Schultz said he is not aware if ICE has not made any efforts to determine if Abrego Garcia would face persecution or be tortured or confined in Eswatini, or be removed a second time to El Salvador.
Eswatini has previously agreed to accept third-country removals from the U.S. and the two countries have a memorandum of understanding, he added.
Ghana another potential destination
Schultz said that ICE has also identified the west African country of Ghana as a potential nation for Abrego Garica’s removal. Schultz said once a third country has agreed to accept Abrego Garica, he could be removed by ICE within 72 hours.
However, Ghana’s Foreign Minister, Sam Okudzeto Ablakwa, wrote on social media that the country will not accept Abrego Garcia.
“This has been directly and unambiguously conveyed to US authorities,” he wrote. “In my interactions with US officials, I made clear that our understanding to accept a limited number of non-criminal West Africans, purely on the grounds of African solidarity and humanitarian principles would not be expanded.”
Schultz said that ICE “prematurely” sent a notice of removal to Abrego Garcia with Ghana as the designation.
The Costa Rica alternative
One of Abrego Garcia’s attorneys, Sascha Rand, grilled Schultz about why DHS would not remove him to Costa Rica, despite Abrego Garcia agreeing to go.
Schultz said he was unaware of the letter from Costa Rica’s government saying it would accept Abrego Garcia.
Another attorney for Abrego Garcia, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said that the Trump administration offered to remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica in August if he were to plead guilty to criminal charges in a federal case in Tennessee.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his criminal case in Nashville said in court filings that the Trump administration is trying to get him to plead guilty to human smuggling charges by promising to remove him to Costa Rica if he does so, and threatening to deport him to Uganda if he refuses.
Rand asked Schultz if anyone from DHS was in contact with Costa Rica.
Schultz said he was unaware if there were conversations between the federal government and Costa Rica about removing him there.
Rossman said based on Schultz’s testimony, it was clear the Trump administration was “holding hostage passage to Costa Rica.”
“They aren’t presently intending to remove him,” he said. “They have spun the globe and picked various (African) countries… to fail on purpose.”
William J. Ford of Maryland Matters contributed to this report.
A jail lieutenant for a northern Wisconsin sheriff’s office resigned in 2022 after an internal investigation found he sent sexually explicit messages and photos to female subordinates. He now works as a police officer in a neighboring county.
Jeffrey Johnson worked at the Sawyer County Sheriff’s Office for 10 years, rising to administrator of the county jail, before he “resigned in lieu of termination,” according to a Wisconsin Department of Justice database that tracks law enforcement officers who leave a position under negative circumstances. Johnson started working for the Minong Police Department in Washburn County a little over a year later, according to the same database.
His resignation came after he admitted to sending “text messages of a sexual nature to a subordinate jail deputy, including pictures of your genitals,” according to a document from the sheriff’s office The Badger Project obtained in a records request. “When confronted about these text messages, you did not deny sending them and noted you could not recall the messages, given you were likely intoxicated when they were sent.”
Sawyer County refused to release the full investigation report to The Badger Project, citing client-attorney privilege, but one of the documents it did release notes that Johnson interacted similarly with “a number of other female deputies.”
Sawyer County Sheriff Doug Mrotek said in an interview that scrutiny on Johnson was greater because he was a leader and oversaw the jail’s staff of about 17 people. But he was not on duty when he sent the messages and the interactions didn’t constitute harassment, Mrotek said.
“We all make mistakes,” Mrotek said. “We all can have a bad day. It’s tough for me not to have a lot of respect for his integrity and character. Now make no mistake, I’m not saying that I condone his wrong action … but he made a mistake. And that mistake cost him his position as a leader.”
Mrotek said if Johnson had been a patrol deputy and not a jail lieutenant at the time, he would probably still be working for the Sawyer County Sheriff’s Office.
“It’s a leader-subordinate issue,” Mrotek said. But “he’s not going to make the same mistake twice.”
Johnson used Mrotek as a reference when he applied to his current job, where he works as a patrol officer and not in a supervisory role.
Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.
Minong Police Department Chief Lucas Shepard wrote in an email that Johnson was recommended for the position by the command staff at Sawyer County Sheriff’s Office.
Shepard also said Johnson was unanimously approved for the position at his department by himself and four citizen representatives. The chief and Johnson are Minong’s only full-time police officers.
Shepard said his department’s own background check revealed that the allegations of misconduct against Johnson involved consensual behavior that happened off duty.
“Beyond his resignation from that department, Officer Johnson offered the Minong Police Department years of valuable knowledge, training, and experience in law enforcement,” Shepard wrote. He “exemplifies what community-based policing strives for and if he has one definite characteristic as an officer, it is the care that he has for the people that he is policing.”
Wandering officers increasing in Wisconsin during cop crunch
This cop crunch has been a problem for years across the country, experts say.
Statewide, the number of wandering officers, those who were fired or forced out from a previous job in law enforcement, continues to rise. Nearly 400 officers in Wisconsin currently employed were fired or forced out of previous jobs in law enforcement in the state, almost double the amount from 2021. And that doesn’t include officers who were pushed out of law enforcement jobs outside of the state and came to Wisconsin to work.
Despite their work histories, wandering officers can be attractive to hire for law enforcement agencies, as they already have their certification, have experience and can start working immediately.
Law enforcement agencies can look up job applicants in the state DOJ’s database to get more insight into officers’ work history. And a law enacted in 2021 in Wisconsin bans law enforcement agencies from sealing the personnel files and work histories of former officers, previously a common tactic for cops with a black mark on their record.
About 13,400 law enforcement officers are currently employed in Wisconsin, excluding those who primarily work in a corrections facility, according to the state DOJ. Wandering officers make up about 2.5% of the total.
At least one major study published in the Yale Law Journal has found that wandering officers are more likely to receive a complaint for a moral character violation, compared to new officers and veterans who haven’t been fired or forced out from a previous position in law enforcement.
This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.
Login
