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.”

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.

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.

Wisconsin landscape | Photo by Greg Conniff for Wisconsin Examiner

President Donald Trump’s tariffs are becoming a major drain on Wisconsin’s agricultural economy. China stopped purchasing U.S. soybeans amid a new trade war this spring, triggering a price collapse and leaving farmers wondering what to do with the bumper crop they are now harvesting. Cranberry growers say they’re facing low prices and market uncertainty, too, as other countries turn away their products because of tariffs. 

Small wonder the latest ag economy barometer published by Purdue University on Oct. 7 found that nationwide farmers say their economic condition is weakening. Despite expected record-high corn and soybean yields, farmers report they expect weaker financial performance in 2025 than in 2024 and have a weaker capital investment outlook.

Yet even as optimism about the farm economy is fading, support for Trump among farmers remains strong.

Back in March, 70% of farmers who answered the Purdue survey said they believed tariffs would strengthen the agricultural economy in the long run. That number dropped steeply to 51% by September. Still a large majority — 71% – continue to believe the country as a whole is moving in the right direction, and 80% believe the Trump administration is likely or very likely to give them an aid package to compensate for the damage done by tariffs and trade wars.  

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisconsin) reinforced this hope on the WRDN radio podcast from the World Dairy Expo in Madison last week. Tiffany, who is running for governor, was asked what he says to farmers who are “fed up” with Trump’s tariffs. He replied that Trump tariffs are not going away, but, he said of the administration, “they’re gonna use some of that tariff revenue, which is significant, to help farmers out. Because they know, I mean, President Trump has no better friends than the farmers of America.” 

Trump has suggested he will unveil another farm bailout as he did during his first administration, when China responded to steep tariffs by scaling back purchases of U.S. agricultural products. 

The problem with the bailout solution, says Gbenga Ajilore, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former senior adviser for rural development at USDA, is that the revenue generated by tariffs that Trump proposes to convert into handouts to farmers comes directly from the farmers themselves.  

“It’s not even like robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s like robbing Peter to pay Peter,” Ajilore said in a phone interview Wednesday. “What’s happening is that there are tariffs on a lot of goods — looking at steel, aluminum, looking at fertilizers. So farmers are paying more for their inputs. We’re seeing this impacting these companies like Caterpillar, John Deere. And so you can say there’s a lot of revenue, but it’s coming out of the pockets of consumers, businesses and farmers.” 

If farmers are not already feeling seasick as the Trump administration spins the ag economy around on a cycle of tariffs and bailouts, the administration’s immigration crackdown is also making them queasy. 

A panel discussion at last week’s World Dairy Expo focused on a labor shortage made worse by a Trump administration that seems hell-bent on deporting the agricultural workforce.

The recent ICE action that scooped up 24 dairy workers in Manitowoc, most of whom had no criminal records, and deportations of entire crews of legally present H2A workers in Texas had farmers who attended the discussion worried.

“Taking hard-working employees off farms does not make communities safer,” said Brain Rexing, a dairy farmer from Indiana. He described the Hispanic workers on his farm as “way more than employees. — they work together with me and my family side to side.”

Like other farmers, he said, he goes to bed at night worrying about his workers and wakes up in the morning worrying about them. Instead of threatening farmworkers with deportation, Rexing and other farmers at the Expo said, Congress should finally get around to creating a year-round visa that recognizes their essential contributions to the U.S. economy. 

U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) spoke to the group and assured them that the Trump administration has their back. He had personally spoken with Elon Musk he said. “I was like, hey, Elon, there’s two groups of people in the United States that we need to really watch out for. One of them are service members and veterans, because they gave us our freedom and keep us free. And the second one are our farmers, because they feed us. .. So he really zoned in on that and grasped it,” Van Orden said. 

Another “incredibly, incredibly strong proponent of the dairy industry,” he added, “is Tom Homan.”  Homan is Trump’s border czar and the architect of the family separation policy during the first Trump administration. “He was raised on a dairy farm,” Van Orden said. “So keep that in mind. There are some people in D.C. that understand what’s going on. We’re trying our best to help you. So I would just ask that you stay in the business and that God will bless you.”

It was not the most reassuring speech. But Van Orden also asked the dairy farmers in the room to support his proposal for a new system to make their workforce legal, which would impose a fine on employers and dairy workers and then require the workers to self-deport before returning to the country under a new federal program that would allow them to do their jobs legally. He introduced the bill in July and it was referred to the House Agriculture Committee, of which he is a member. 

The farmers, understandably, had a lot of questions.

What was their workers’ incentive to participate? How long would it take the government to process their paperwork, remove them from the country and let them back in again? How do they know they won’t be deported as soon as they come back? 

These are reasonable fears, given the terrifying scenes of ICE grabbing people off the street, busting down doors and zip-tying parents and children, sweeping up people with and without legal authorization to be in the country, whether or not they have committed any crime.

Recently, even the Trump administration’s Labor Department declared that the nation’s food system faces an emergency due to the administration’s aggressive mass deportation program, warning in a federal filing uncovered by the American Prospect that the immigration crackdown on agricultural workers has created a significant “risk of supply shock-induced food shortages.” 

“The Department does not believe American workers currently unemployed or marginally employed will make themselves readily available in sufficient numbers to replace large numbers of aliens,” the filing states, contradicting Trump administration rhetoric about immigrants stealing American jobs.

The solution proposed by Trump’s labor department is to pay H2A seasonal agricultural workers even less — offsetting the cost to employers of a terrified workforce that is disinclined to show up to work after ICE raids.

It seems like a weird solution, as David Dayen of the American Prospect observed, “since cutting wages across the sector will likely drive existing workers to look elsewhere for jobs.”

But there is a dark logic behind the move to slash wages for agricultural workers in the midst of the moral panic over immigration. Dayen quotes Antonio De Loera-Brust of the United Farm Workers, who sees a government threatening mass deportations working hand in glove with employers who benefit from a powerless immigrant workforce. 

“We call it the ‘Deport and Replace’ strategy,” De Loera-Brust said, “which is defined above all to make it easier for corporate agribusiness to exploit its workers, whether terrified undocumented residents or an unlimited pool of cheap foreign guest workers … The Trump administration would rather expand the abusive H-2A program than do right by the workers who are already here, feeding America for decades.”

This situation does not directly apply to Wisconsin dairy farms, since dairy workers are not eligible for H2A visas. But it was not at all clear from Van Orden’s remarks at the World Dairy Expo that he understands that fact. 

“The H2A program is broken and it sucks. There you go. That’s the whole press conference,” he said after he was introduced. Later, he referred to “all this garbage you’ve been dealing with, these H2As and H2Bs” insisting his own proposal for a new visa system would work better. In fact, dairy farmers are not dealing with the H2A (seasonal) or H2B (non-agricultural) visa systems at all.

Van Orden did acknowledge the difficult situation for the dairy industry, which depends on a labor force 60% to 90% of which is made up of immigrants who lack any sort of legal authorization to be in the country, since there is no such thing as a year-round visa for low-skilled work.

“Rocks are heavy. Trees are made of wood. Gravity is real. If we deport every single person that is working in the agriculture industry, the hospitality industry and the construction industry, all of those industries will shutter in a moment’s notice,” Van Orden declared.

But it’s unclear if his plan, the Agricultural Workforce Reform Act of 2025, will help.

One farmer asked if his workers would be barred from returning to the U.S. if they committed a traffic violation (a common concern in Wisconsin, where immigrants without legal papers cannot get a driver’s license). Van Orden fobbed him off, saying that would be a question for the executive branch to resolve through its rule-making process.

Several farmers listening to Van Orden affirmed that they supported Trump’s goal of securing the border, but added that they thought that mission had been accomplished. Now they hoped the administration would turn its attention to a new public safety issue — the threat mass deportations pose to the U.S. food supply.  

Farmers across the country seem inclined to give the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt. But the doubt is growing. 

“Farmers are getting it in so many ways; their exports are down, their costs are up, and they’re losing their workforce,” said Ajilore, the former USDA economist. Given all that, farmer sentiment “actually hasn’t really moved as much as you would expect, given what’s happening,” he said. He attributes it to a wait-and-see attitude among farmers who have faithfully supported Trump for years. But now, he added, “the impact is starting to really hit home.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 3, 2023. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical that the Trump administration’s expanded use of a fast-track deportation procedure didn’t violate the due-process rights of immigrants during oral arguments Monday.

The hearing before judges Patricia A. Millett, Neomi Rao and J. Michelle Childs of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals comes after a lower court struck down the expedited removal policy used to bypass judicial review in the quick removals of migrants far from the southern border. The expanded policy is a pillar in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

“This is a critical tool of immigration enforcement,” U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign said. “This is not a small deal. The ability to conduct expedited removal is one of the executive’s most important tools for maintaining border control and not being overwhelmed.”

For decades, presidential administrations have applied expedited removal to immigrants apprehended at the southern border who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. If they cannot produce that proof, those immigrants are then subject to deportation without appearing before an immigration judge.

In January, the Trump administration expanded expedited removal to apply nationwide, rather than only within 100 miles of the southern border.

Childs said the Trump administration can still use expedited removal, along with other enforcement tools, for its immigration policy.

“So what are you losing, other than (applying expedited removal to) millions of other people, to go inward into the U.S.?” Childs asked.

Former President Barack Obama appointed Millett, former President Joe Biden appointed Childs, and President Donald Trump appointed Rao in his first term.

Policy lacks procedure

Arguing on behalf of the immigration advocacy group that brought the suit, Make the Road New York, attorney Anand Balakrishnan said the new policy “brings to bear against this new class of people an entire system of expedited removal that is not procedurally adequate.”

The judges also questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s expanded use of expedited removal. 

Ensign argued that the Trump administration doesn’t believe the expansion violates due-process rights because those affected are not U.S. citizens.

“It has been well-established that aliens who are not lawfully admitted into the country are only entitled to whatever procedures the political branches provide, and that the plaintiffs cannot rely on the due-process clause to impose additional procedural requirements,” Ensign said.

Balakrishnan said that when the Trump administration expanded the use of the policy in January, there were no new procedures put in place, meaning immigrants wanting to challenge their removal under the new policy would have no way to do so.

“The procedures that have been on the books, in some cases are not tailored for this radically new class to which it’s being applied, and in other cases, are insufficient to deal with the unique challenges placed by them and the liberty interests of this new group,” Balakrishnan said. 

The Rev. Michael Vanacore leads a prayer before a rally ends Oct. 6, 2025, outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland,  before a hearing in support of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to produce evidence within 48 hours on its efforts to again deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, this time to the southern African country of Eswatini.

That evidence from the Trump administration is due by Wednesday to  Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis. She will consider an order to release Abrego Garcia as part of his habeas corpus petition, which challenges his detention at a U.S.immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. 

If the Trump administration is making no effort to remove Abrego Garcia, Xinis said the issue then becomes indefinite detainment of an individual, which runs against a Supreme Court ruling that found immigrants can’t be detained longer than six months if they are not in the process of being removed.

Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant whom the Trump administration mistakenly deported to his home country and to a notorious mega-prison before returning him to the United States to face criminal charges, has thrown the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown into the spotlight. 

Xinis, nominated by former President Joe Biden, scheduled another hearing Friday, which will be about Abrego Garcia’s possible removal to Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. The African country has aided the Trump administration in accepting third-country removals.

Department of Justice attorney Jonathan D. Guynn during Monday’s hearing confirmed such a removal is planned at some point by the administration.

Xinis pressed DOJ attorneys on exactly what steps the federal government has taken to send Abrego Garcia to Eswatini.

Guynn said the federal government has not formally started a plan of removal, but said he could not confirm if removal plans were in motion. He argued that there are no imminent plans by the federal government to remove Abrego Garcia and the DOJ is trying to show that by keeping him in ICE custody.

“The government feels like it’s in the damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t, situation,” Guynn said. “The government has been trying to respond … about concerns that Mr. Abrego Garcia will be rapidly removed from the United States, notwithstanding his habeas case, and ongoing immigration proceedings, and so in an abundance of caution… the United States is not imminently planning to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia.” 

Previously the Trump administration planned to deport Abrego Garcia to either Uganda or Eswatini. 

DOJ attorneys also asked for a temporary stay in the habeas corpus petition because of the government shutdown. 

Xinis denied the stay. She pointed to the DOJ’s own shutdown contingency plan, which allows for litigation concerning habeas petitions to continue. 

Protests in support of Abrego Garcia

About an hour before Monday’s hearing, the immigrant advocacy group CASA led a rally in front of the courthouse to continue its show of support for Abrego Garcia.

About 100 people led chants shouting, “We are Kilmar!” “No More” and “When we fight, we win!” and held signs in support of Abrego Garcia and criticizing the Trump administration.

Religious leaders said prayers and a few other people spoke, such as Krystal Oriadha, who serves as vice chair of the Prince George’s County Council. Oriadha’s father was born in Kenya and immigrated to the U.S., where he met her mother in college.

“I understand the story of immigration, and it’s one that has been such a story of pride in my life because it’s filled of sacrifice, yes and struggles, but pride and love for your family and hard work,” she said. “It is what every immigrant stands for, not the propaganda that this administration is propping up calling hardworking, loving families criminals, demonizing them. So let’s be careful and mindful of the propaganda that they’re spilling today.”

Tennessee charges

The federal judge in Abrego Garcia’s criminal trial in Tennessee, in which he is accused of human smuggling of immigrants, on Friday granted Abrego Garcia an evidentiary hearing. It will determine if those charges from the Trump administration are an illegal retaliation after Abrego Garcia successfully brought a suit challenging his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. 

Separately, an immigration judge last week denied Abrego Garcia’s request to reopen his asylum case. 

Abrego Garcia first came to the U.S. without legal authorization as a teenager in 2011. He tried to open an asylum case in 2019, but was denied because he did not apply within his first year in the U.S., which is the legal deadline for such claims.

The Friday decision from that immigration judge ends one of the efforts for Abrego Garcia’s lawyers to keep him in the U.S., due to his protections from deportation to El Salvador. 

A separate immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia those protections from El Salvador in 2019, finding that Abrego Garcia would likely face violence if returned to his home country. 

At the time, the federal government didn’t search for a third country to remove Abrego Garcia. 

Six-month limit

Monday’s hearing focused on the time frame of Abrego Garcia’s detainment and whether it conflicted with a 2001 Supreme Court case, in which justices ruled immigrants who are not in the process of removal cannot be kept in ICE detention for more than six months. 

Xinis questioned the reason for Abrego Garcia’s detention since late August if the Trump administration had no evidence of its plans to remove the longtime Maryland man. 

Another DOJ attorney, Bridget K. O’Hickey, said the federal government has not formalized a removal plan for Abrego Garcia, adding that she didn’t know if there were any plans in the process. 

Xinis called a short break in the middle of Monday’s hearing to give the DOJ attorneys time to make any calls to get information if the Trump administration was removing him. 

DOJ attorney Ernesto H. Molina said he was unable to reach anyone, pointing to the possible furlough of federal workers.

“It just is remarkable to me that you’re saying you can’t find a soul who can give you, in this case, any additional information,” Xinis said. “That suggests there is none.” 

One of Abrego Garcia’s lawyers in the Maryland case, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, argued that if the Trump administration wanted to remove Abrego Garcia, they would send him to Costa Rica, which has already agreed to accept Abrego Garicia as a refugee. 

Xinis asked why Abrego Garcia hasn’t been removed to Costa Rica. 

“We’ve received no communications, and I can’t even wrap my brain to think of a constitutionally permissible reason why they would be fighting over whether to send them across the Atlantic Ocean when they can, this afternoon, send him to Costa Rica,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

Xinis asked the DOJ attorneys if there has been any effort to remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, but Molina and O’Hickey said they have not been informed of those efforts.

Human smuggling charges

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia’s criminal case in Nashville said in court filings that the Trump administration was trying to force 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. 

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty and was ordered released by the federal judge in Tennessee to await his trial there in January on charges he took part in a long-running conspiracy to smuggle immigrants without legal status across the United States. 

In late August, after Abrego Garcia was released from U.S. Marshals Service custody in Tennessee, immigration officials informed him he had to appear in Baltimore before the ICE field office for a check-in appointment. During that appointment, Abrego Garcia was detained. 

Xinis has previously ordered the Trump administration cannot remove Abrego Garcia from the U.S. while his habeas petition continues, and that he must be kept within 200 miles of the courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland. Last month, the Trump administration transferred Abrego Garcia from a facility in Virginia to an ICE detention facility 189 miles away in Pennsylvania. 

William J. Ford contributed to this report. 

DACA supporters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. (Photo by Robin Bravender/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Advocates Thursday raised alarm over immigrants with special deportation protections facing detainment across the country, as the Trump administration continues its aggressive mass deportation campaign. 

Home is Here, a coalition of advocates for immigrants with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status, has documented a pattern of immigration agents targeting DACA recipients. At least 18 DACA recipients are detained, according to a Home is Here tracker. 

So far, Home is Here has pinpointed DACA recipients detained in Alabama,  Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia.

The immigrant advocates were joined at a press conference by congressional Democrats and family members of DACA recipients currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The lawmakers included Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Alex Padilla of Carlifornia and Reps. Sylvia Garcia of Texas and Delia Ramirez of Illinois. 

“The Trump administration is killing DACA piece by piece,” Garcia said. 

DACA tied up in court

The Trump administration tried to end DACA during President Donald Trump’s first term, but the Supreme Court blocked the effort. Republican-led states have challenged the legality of DACA and its fate is tied up in an appeals court.

There are roughly 550,000 DACA recipients, a program created under the Obama administration for undocumented children brought into the country without legal authorization by their parents. 

DACA allows that group to be shielded from deportation and obtain work authorizations and driver’s licenses. DACA recipients have to reapply every two years for a renewal fee of $520 and pass a background check.

Ramirez said the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportation campaign is indiscriminately targeting immigrants and has instilled fear in Latino communities. 

“The whole (Trump) administration are waging a campaign of terror against our neighbors, against our own families, against our loved ones as they advance their fascist agenda and they try to cast immigrants as a public enemy,” said Ramirez, who is married to a DACA recipient and is the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants. 

The Democrats said they would continue to speak out against the detention of DACA recipients and provide assistance in litigation for families. A handful of Democrats have sued ICE over blocked access to detention facilities to conduct oversight. 

An arrest, and detainment

The wife of a DACA recipient in ICE detention, Alejandra, who spoke at the press conference, said that she saw through a home security camera her husband, Paulo Cesar Gamez Lira, being arrested by masked men in the driveway of their Texas home.

Alejandra said their children were in the car and they could be heard screaming on the video. Her husband remains in detainment. The ACLU of New Mexico said in a statement he is 28 years old and the father of four U.S. citizen children.

“No family should ever have to endure that kind of terror,” she said. “For more than a decade, Paulo has been able to renew his status without issues. He has always followed the rules, done everything this country asked of him, and yet, under this administration, it feels like none of that matters anymore.”

(L-R) Adrien Wood, Aeriana Wood, and Juliana Wood have a picture taken by Michael Race in front of the Alligator Alcatraz sign at the entrance to the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport on July 10, 2025, in Ochopee. The site is the location of the state-managed immigration detention facility in the Florida Everglades that officials have named “Alligator Alcatraz.” (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A federal appeals court last week ordered the “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center to remain open partially because it lacked federal ties. A week later, Florida formally applied for federal funds.

The state’s request for reimbursement for its spending on the migrant detention facility in the heart of the Everglades came just days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit hit pause on a federal judge’s order shutting down the center over environmental concerns. The 2-1 vote claimed that federal environmental laws don’t apply because Florida officials haven’t used any federal money.

But less than eight days after the ruling — which stayed all aspects of the case — the Florida Division of Emergency Management asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be reimbursed, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told the Florida Phoenix in an email.

“The State of Florida submitted an application for reimbursement to [FEMA],” the spokesperson said. Although they didn’t comment on what day the application was made nor for how much money, this confirmed Politico’s reporting that FDEM’s executive director, Kevin Guthrie, said the state had applied for federal money.

Gov. Ron DeSantis has long promised that Florida would be reimbursed for its detention center spending, although neither his office nor FDEM ever clarified when they planned to ask for the money. Federal authorities similarly lauded the facility as a joint effort, but showed no signs of chipping in until last week.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are working at turbo speed on cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people’s mandate for mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens,” the DHS official said. “These new facilities are in large part to be funded by FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program.”

The Shelter and Services program allocated $608.4 million toward FEMA’s new Detention Support Grant Program, specifically designed to expedite Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mass detention and deportation agenda. If FEMA approves Florida’s request, the money will be awarded by Sep. 30. The Everglades facility is estimated to cost around $450 million for the year.

The attorney general’s office redirected questions to FDEM, which did not respond to questions about the application’s timeline.

‘So what do you say, judges?’

In a 2-1 decision on Sep. 4, the Eleventh Circuit both paused federal trial judge Kathleen Williams’ order to shut down the facility and fully stayed the case. The lawsuit was brought against the state by the Miccosukee Tribe and environmental groups Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biodiversity.

They claimed the center, located within the Everglades and Big Cypress National Preserve, was harming the environment and violating the National Environmental Policy Act.

But judges Barbara Lagoa and Elizabeth Branch, both Trump appointees, ruled that Williams had erred by applying the federal law to a center that had exclusively received state funds. Florida hadn’t even applied for federal reimbursement, they argued. The activists have since asked the appeals court to reconsider their decision to halt the lawsuit.

If the judges don’t, Miami attorney Joseph DeMaria said the plaintiffs would be stymied unless they can “un-stay” the case — even though the majority opinion was largely predicated on the lack of federal ties.

“Unless they can get the case unstuck, there’s nothing they can do,” said DeMaria, who once worked as a prosecutor with the Justice Department’s Miami Organized Crime Strike Force. [The state] played it cute by saying, ‘We haven’t formally agreed yet, so federal law doesn’t apply.'”

He posed a rhetorical question to the appellate judges on the case: “You said that the feds haven’t agreed to pay, so there’s no jurisdiction to enforce the federal environmental law, but then almost immediately after you said that, they went and agreed to pay. So what do you say, judges?”

Attorneys for the Friends of the Everglades declined to comment, while the governor’s office, the Miccosukee Tribe, and the Center for Biodiversity did not respond to requests for comment.

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador.  (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration paid El Salvador $4.76 million to detain up to 300 immigrant men for up to a year at a notorious mega-prison and barred the funds from being used to help asylum seekers, reproductive care or diversity initiatives, according to a court document filed Tuesday. 

It’s the first time the financial agreement has been made public after the White House initially said the deal amounted to $6 million. 

The payments were part of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown and decision to invoke a wartime law to remove Venezuelan nationals. 

The four-page agreement between the United States and El Salvador verifies that the funds came out of the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law, which gives financial assistance to security forces and is subject to a human rights law known as the Leahy Law. 

That human rights law bars State’s financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations. 

“The purpose of this grant is to provide funds to be used by the Salvadoran law enforcement and corrections agencies for its law enforcement needs, which includes costs associated with detaining the 238 TdA members recently deported to El Salvador,” according to the agreement.

Those who drafted the law raised concerns that those payments violated human rights laws, as more than 250 Venezuelan men were removed from the U.S. to the brutal prison, Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, despite a federal judge’s order barring such action.

Congressional Democrats have asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the White House for a copy of the financial agreement for months, over concerns the funds were being used in violation of human rights. 

March flight to El Salvador

On March 15, the Trump administration sent 238 men to CECOT, after invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to apply to Venezuelan nationals 14 and older who are suspected members of the gang Tren de Aragua. 

The agreement, dated March 22, noted the men could be detained up to a year. 

It also bars any of the $4.76 million to be used to help asylum seekers seek legal counsel for the U.S. asylum process, for access to abortion, funds for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that provides humanitarian assistance to Palestinians or for programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

The men were released back to Venezuela as part of a prison swap in July, but they remained at CECOT for four months. Some of those detained, including Kilmar Abrego Garica, of Maryland, whose mistaken deportation captured national attention, detailed psychological and physical torture. 

No protection from torture

The document was obtained through a lawsuit by Democracy Forward, which specifically argued the financial agreement between El Salvador and the U.S. “was created without any legal basis.” 

“The correspondence between the U.S. State Department and El Salvador confirms what we have long suspected: the Trump-Vance administration did nothing to meaningfully ensure that individuals disappeared from the U.S. to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison were protected from torture, indefinite confinement, or other abuses,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement. “The agreement did, however, go to lengths to ensure that the funds the U.S. provided to El Salvador not be used to provide reproductive health care or to assist asylum seekers in accessing resources and counsel.”  

That case is being overseen by District of Columbia Judge James Boasberg, who also ordered the Trump administration to turn around planes carrying men removed under the wartime law. Instead, the planes landed in El Salvador. 

Reading Time: 9 minutes

This story was originally published by The 19th.

Yessenia Ruano’s home in Milwaukee is in a state of limbo. Some of the family’s belongings have been sold. Some were gifted, out of necessity, to friends and family, including plants Ruano offered to her coworkers. The most essential — clothing, her daughters’ American birth certificates — were packed into suitcases. 

Ruano’s husband, Miguel, is now contending with the rest: two cars in their driveway waiting to be sold, travel documents for their dog, boxes with additional household items he promised to pack up and ship before he, too, departs for El Salvador in a few weeks. 

In May, The 19th wrote about Ruano’s fight to remain in the country despite a pending order of deportation. Ruano, a teacher’s aide at a local public school and the mother of twin daughters who are U.S. citizens, argued that her deep roots in her community and her pending application for a visa should at the very least buy her more time. 

Ruano was among the millions of immigrants living in the United States who lack permanent authorization. They now face the Trump administration’s intensifying efforts to drive up the number of immigrants deported or otherwise removed from the country. That includes many immigrants who, like Ruano, have been in the country for a decade or longer, who have no criminal record, and whose ties to the country include young children — some of them U.S. citizens — and also careers and community. 

Before her first check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following Trump’s inauguration, Ruano decided to make her struggle public, summoning the help of her local community to avoid deportation. A petition in her support gathered 2,800 signatures within its first 24 hours, and a fundraiser for the family had raised close to $16,000 as of the week of July 1, with the average donation hovering under $60. 

The Trump administration’s message has been that the focus of its efforts is on people who have committed crimes and pose a threat to public safety. In order to reach their ambitious deportation goals, immigration officials have also targeted immigrants who are among the easiest to locate and remove: people like Ruano, who regularly attend check-ins with ICE. 

As of last month, Ruano had attended 19 in-person check-ins with ICE over her 14 years in the United States, in addition to logging dozens of virtual check-ins and, for a time, submitting to 24-hour monitoring. 

Ruano appeared for her last check-in at the end of May, holding a much-awaited “receipt number” from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency showing that her visa application for victims of human trafficking was being processed. Before Trump, such an application would have likely paused deportation proceedings. Instead, Ruano was told she was expected to depart the country within days and given instructions for how to confirm she had arrived in El Salvador through ICE’s monitoring app. Failure to do so could lead to her immediate detention. 

---

Ruano and her daughters, Eli and Paola, 10, boarded a United Airlines flight scheduled to leave Milwaukee’s Mitchell International Airport on June 17 at 11:35 a.m. local time. The girls’ first time on an airplane was with a one-way ticket out of their first and only home. 

Ruano, who by the time of her departure had captured the attention of many people in Milwaukee and elsewhere in the country, spoke to news cameras and a group of supporters in the hall of the airport. She pleaded for a fix to the nation’s immigration system for herself and millions of immigrants in a similar situation.

“For the good of the United States, given this ongoing chaos, our political parties need to have serious conversations about our immigration system — and stop treating it like political soccer,” Ruano said. 

As Ruano started to speak, she was interrupted by an automated message from the mayor that rang over the intercom, reminding travelers that in Milwaukee, “there’s so many opportunities to live, work and have fun.” 

Ruano continued, thanking her school community and her broader community in Milwaukee for their support. 

“To my immigrant community, I want to say that we cannot live in fear. We need to keep working for our children’s futures. … Our love and our togetherness is what will get us through.” 

Ruano exchanged hugs with many of the people gathered: relatives, colleagues, supporters. Then, she joined her daughters to go through airport security. 

Hours before their scheduled flight, Ruano said that the girls were experiencing a convoluted mix of emotions. They vacillated between afraid and sad, and somewhat excited, “as if they were going on vacation.” Ruano chalked it up to their age and the fact that the flight coincided with the end of the school year and the start of summer.

At the terminal, Ruano sat between her two daughters, chatting and sending messages to loved ones until it was time to board. 

---

The family’s departure bore a hole in the community they had built in Milwaukee.

With most of their relatives in El Salvador, Miguel, Yessenia and their twin girls came to lean on his sister and her family, who in turn, leaned on them. They would trade rides to school, handiwork around their homes when something broke and child care — all of the normal beats of extended families. 

“We were there for each other for anything the other needed, a tool, a favor,” Miguel said. “It was just the two of us.”

Days before Ruano and the girls boarded their flight, the family got together for what was supposed to be a 10th birthday celebration for the twins. It was the last occasion they got to mark together, and with Ruano’s departure imminent, the focus shifted in part to goodbyes. 

Miguel said he and his sister will continue to lean on each other during his final days in the United States. Her close circle of support will be permanently altered once he leaves.

Arriving home from the airport without his family to an empty house, Miguel said, was one of the hardest moments of his life. 

“It’s an ugly feeling. I’ve never been alone without them,” Miguel said. 

Before he joins them later in the summer, Miguel is packing up boxes to ship to El Salvador. Each box costs $450 to ship. Some boxes hold his tools. Others hold extra clothes and shoes for his daughters, along with some of their toys and trinkets. Miguel is packing pots, pans and other kitchen items for Ruano, “so she can feel like she has her things, like she’s home.”

The first box to be packed and ready is covered in a criss-cross of duct tape. “One of three boxes holding 14 years of dreams and hard work,” Miguel said. “Sometimes I think this was all just a nice dream that now we have to wake up from, but it’s not fair, not for my girls.” 

---

The heart of Ruano’s support was her school community at ALBA School, a bilingual public school in Milwaukee known in Spanish as Academia de Lenguaje y Bellas Artes. Sarah Weintraub, a middle school teacher at ALBA, said she became invested in Ruano’s plight, and in the lead-up to Ruano’s February appointment with ICE, began rallying community support from organizations like the local teachers’ union.

Weintraub and Ruano had worked together over the years and connected over the looming threats and challenges facing immigrants in the United States. Weintraub said she has loved ones in a similar situation. Weintraub’s daughter also attends ALBA and bonded with Ruano even though she was never her student. 

Weintraub described ALBA as “a very tight-knit school.” Ruano’s absence will be sorely felt. 

“Many of us have our own kids at the school. I have my kids there. Her kids are there. So, much of the staff is just very close in general,” Weintraub said. “My daughter loves her so much and has never been in any of her classes, just knows her from the school and the cafeteria.”

Weintraub said Ruano’s absence is a significant loss for the school as a workplace. 

“Right now, it’s summer break, so we’re not in our usual routine. But I know already, just thinking about going back and her not being there will be — her absence will be very felt.”

Ruano, she said, was the type of colleague who “jumps in right away” when there’s a need, and “you don’t just find the energy every day.” The school district, like the rest of the country, is struggling with a shortage of teachers — especially bilingual educators. “I don’t even know if her position will be filled right away,” Weintraub said. 

Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant advocacy group, worked closely with Ruano and her colleagues at ALBA to elevate Ruano’s story as they worked to avert her deportation. Through events, news releases and outreach to elected officials, her story reached many people who didn’t know her, but saw themselves in her situation.

For Milwaukee’s immigrant community, Ruano’s departure brought home the reality of life under the new administration, said Christine Neumann-Ortiz, co-founder and executive director of Voces de la Frontera. “It definitely highlights that we’re in a new time,” she said, adding that there’s a “cruelty” and “senselessness” to the way the administration is handling immigration enforcement. 

For the members of Voces de la Frontera, Neumann-Ortiz said, “there’s a feeling of sadness because it’s not what people want, or fought for.” During a meeting following Ruano’s departure, many members said they wanted to find ways to stay in touch with immigrants who are removed and deported, including Ruano. 

Ruano also left behind her church community at Nuestra Señora de la Paz, where she was an active member of the prayer group and a mentor for a group of children preparing for their First Communion. 

Blanca Cisneros, 70, said Ruano was a constant presence at the church’s community activities, always willing to volunteer when help was needed. “She’s really special: She’s both really humble and really strong,” Cisneros said. “Her situation just breaks my heart. It will be a big loss for our group because she has a strong desire to serve.”

---

On a recent Monday, Ruano woke up early to help her sister prepare grains of corn for milling, setting a large pot over a wood fire on the patio that was still glowing red hours later. In a video call from a rural community in Comasagua, El Salvador, where they’re living, Ruano said her family is slowly adjusting to their new life. 

Ruano and her daughters were reunited with her mom, a grandmother whom the girls had only met through video calls. They’re also spending time with aunts, uncles and cousins; Ruano’s sister lives next door, and they take turns cooking for the entire family. There are no playgrounds or parks nearby, and shopping options are very limited. But recently, Ruano took the girls on a hike near the vast mountain range she grew up calling home. They picked guavas right from tree branches, a highlight of the last few weeks for the girls, and, Ruano said, “a lesson in living more with Mother Nature and less with things that are artificial.” 

In many ways, the adjustment has been hard for all of them. 

Ruano says she feels blessed to have been able to purchase a small, modest home for her mother last year, a home with a bright blue door that they now all share. But the roof leaks when it rains — which is nearly every day — so at night, Ruano and her girls move their bed from one end of their room to another to avoid the largest drips. They have to walk across the yard at night to use the nearest bathroom, which Ruano says no one has gotten used to. 

“They got here happy, telling me they were relieved I wouldn’t be sad anymore and that we were all together,” Ruano said. “But after a few days, seeing how life is — it’s nothing like Milwaukee — they started to cry. And that breaks my heart.” 

As for Ruano, a huge weight was lifted off her shoulders as soon as she boarded their plane out of Milwaukee, having shed the worry of being detained by ICE. 

“I traded one burden for another,” she said. 

Now, she and Miguel have some difficult decisions to make: where to send the girls to school, how to find gainful work. “I’ve already felt that feeling again that I felt when I was young, the feeling of wanting to flee,” Ruano added.

In a video recorded shortly after taking off in Milwaukee, one of Ruano’s daughters says in the background, “Las casas parecen casas de muñecas” — the houses look just like doll houses — while the camera points to the city’s skyline. 

“Adiós, Milwaukee,” Ruano then says, popping into the frame. “Es mi segunda casa, donde vine a madurar, donde vine a aprender más, a realizar mis sueños económicos y familiares.”

Goodbye, Milwaukee. This is my second home, where I came to mature, to learn, to realize my dreams financially and for my family.

This story was originally reported by Mel Leonor Barclay of The 19th. Meet Mel and read more of her reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Photos and additional reporting from Milwaukee by Jamie Kelter Davis.

‘Adiós, Milwaukee’: A family uprooted, a hole left behind is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.