(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Homeland Security is demanding “detailed records” on Harvard University’s student visa holders, according to a statement from the department.
The school must turn over student visa holders’ records, specifically those pertaining to “illegal and violent activities,” or risk losing the school’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program status, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told Harvard in a letter sent by the department.
The SEVP allows for noncitizen students to study at the university under a specific visa.
Noem told Harvard it is a “privilege” to have foreign students attend Harvard, “not a guarantee.”
“The United States Government understands that Harvard University relies heavily on foreign student funding from over 10,000 foreign students to build and maintain their substantial endowment,” Noem wrote in a letter dated April 16 and obtained by ABC News. “At the same time, your institution has created a hostile learning environment for Jewish students due to Harvard’s failure to condemn antisemitism.”
Noem requested that Harvard provide a tranche of information to the department to keep its SEVP status, asking it for information on student visa holders’ “known” illegally activity, violent activity, threats to students or faculty, disciplinary actions taken as a result of being involved in a protest, whether a student obstructed the school’s learning environment and the coursework that a student is taking to maintain the visa status, according to the letter.
“In the event the school fails to respond to this request within the timeframe provided … SEVP will automatically withdraw the school’s certification,” she wrote.
DHS is also pulling $2 million in grants from Harvard — part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to halt grant funding for the university.
“Harvard bending the knee to antisemitism — driven by its spineless leadership — fuels a cesspool of extremist riots and threatens our national security,” Noem said in a press release. “With anti-American, pro-Hamas ideology poisoning its campus and classrooms, Harvard’s position as a top institution of higher learning is a distant memory. America demands more from universities entrusted with taxpayer dollars.”
On Monday, Harvard said it is refusing to comply with a series of demands from President Donald Trump’s administration. The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism subsequently announced a multibillion-dollar freeze on funding to the university.
The administration’s task force said it would withhold $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in multiyear contract value to the institution.
In a statement, Harvard said it is aware of the letter sent by DHS and “values the rule of law,” according to a university spokesperson.
“Harvard is aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s letter regarding grant cancellations and scrutiny of foreign student visas, which — like the Administration’s announcement of the freeze of $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts, and reports of the revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status — follows on the heels of our statement that Harvard will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” the spokesperson said. “We continue to stand by that statement. We will continue to comply with the law and expect the Administration to do the same.
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice filed notice Wednesday that it will appeal the order from a federal judge requiring the government to facilitate the return of wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador, on the same day the it released two documents that were previously used to allegedly tie him to the criminal gang MS-13.
The two forms the government present as evidence — a gang field interview sheet from the Prince George’s County Police Department in Maryland and an additional form from the Department of Homeland Security — base Abrego Garcia’s alleged gang affiliation on his clothing and information from a confidential informant described as a “past proven and reliable source of information.”
The reports provide no other information beyond the clothing and confidential informant to justify the claim that Abrego Garcia is a ranking gang member.
Abrego Garcia is entering his second month in an El Salvador mega-prison after he was deported there on March 15 despite being issued a 2019 court order barring his deportation to his home country due to the fear of persecution.
His attorneys and his wife have denied he is a member of MS-13, and his lawyers have called into question the validity of the document by alleging the detective who authored it was later suspended.
DHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin told ABC News’ Jay O’Brien on Tuesday that Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador was the result of a “clerical error” and that “he should have been sent to a detention center in Mexico, Nicaragua, Egypt.”
According to the gang field interview sheet – a report of the police’s interaction with Abrego Garcia – he was approached by police in 2019 after they said he was loitering in a Home Depot parking lot in Hyattsville, Maryland.
The report noted that Abrego Garcia wore a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie emblazoned with images of rolls of money covering the eyes and ears of former U.S. presidents, which police claimed tied Abrego Garcia to the gang.
“Officers know such clothing to be indicative of the Hispanic gang culture,” the report said, noting that the meaning of the clothing is “see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil.”
“Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13,” the report said.
According to the report, officers contacted a “past proven and reliable source of information” who said that Abrego Garcia was a ranking member of MS-13. Abrego Garcia had the rank of “Chequeo” and had the moniker “Chele,” according to the informant. According to the DOJ, a chequeo is a low level member of MS-13.
The DHS report added that Abrego Garcia was in possession of $1,178 at the time of his arrest.
The report noted that Abrego Garcia was in the company of three other men when he was arrested, one of whom, according to police, had an extensive criminal history and was known as an active gang member. Another was linked to MS-13 based on a confidential source, the report said.
Police said they were unable to link the third man to the gang, writing that “MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang.”
The other document — a DHS I-213 form — cited the Prince George’s County Police Department field interview sheet to claim that Abrego Garcia was “identified” and “validated” as a member of MS-13. Abrego Garcia denied having any information about the gang or human smuggling, according to the DHS report.
An immigration judge who denied Abrego Garcia bond in 2019 cited both reports as the main evidence to conclude he posed a risk to the community.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have highlighted apparent inconsistencies in the DHS report, saying it offers contradictory assessments regarding whether Abrego Garcia feared being removed to El Salvador.
His attorneys have also highlighted that the confidential information linked Abrego Garcia to the Western clique of MS-13, which principally operates on Long Island, where they say he has never lived.
The report also noted that the two other alleged gang members at the Home Depot parking lot were members of a different MS-13 clique.
Wednesday’s developments came a day after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered government officials to testify under oath because, she said, they had “done nothing to aid in Abrego Garcia’s release from custody and return to the United States,” despite the Supreme Court directing the Trump administration to “‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.”
Per Judge Xinis’ orders, the Trump administration on Wednesday submitted its daily status update on Abrego Garcia, saying that were “no further updates.”
“Given the government’s prior clear and unequivocal notice to the Court regarding how the government will facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return within the contours of existing law and regulation, there are no further updates,” Joseph Mazzarra, the Acting General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, said in the update.
(NEW YORK) — Rep. Elise Stefanik, a key Republican ally of President Donald Trump, is considering a run for governor of New York, a source familiar with her thinking told ABC News.
Stefanik’s office didn’t immediately comment.
Gov. Kathy Hochul is running for reelection in 2026 in the Empire State and is vying for her second full term in office.
President Donald Trump nominated Stefanik to be the United Nations ambassador and she was replaced as House Republican Conference Chair by Michigan Rep. Lisa McClain.
However, on March 27, a week before her Senate confirmation vote, Trump announced that he was withdrawing her nomination, citing the razor-thin Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
“There are others that can do a good job at the United Nations. Therefore, Elise will stay in Congress, rejoin the House Leadership Team, and continue to fight for our amazing American People,” Trump said on Truth Social.
“This is about stepping up as a team, and I am doing that as a leader, to ensure that we can take hold of this mandate and deliver these historic results,” Stefanik told Fox News that evening.
Addison Dick, a spokesman for the New York State Democrats, dismissed the news of Stefanik’s possible run, claiming in a statement that the New York GOP “can’t field a serious candidate from their pathetic crew of Trump minions.”
“New Yorkers want nothing to do with the clown show of Trump loyalists who are only focused on enabling Trump’s agenda that is raising costs, gutting health care, and attacking New Yorkers’ freedoms,” he said in a statement.
The upstate New York congresswoman has been rising among the ranks on the Hill for her hard conservative stances.
She played a key role in the congressional response to antisemitism on college campuses amid the Israel-Hamas war. She’s also accused the United Nations of antisemitism.
Although largely Democratic, New York state has seen voters shift red over the last couple of years.
Hochul won the 2022 election with just 377,834 votes, roughly 53% of the total vote, beating then U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin. In the 2018 election, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo won with over 1.4 million votes, roughly 59.55% of the total vote, beating then-Dutchess County Executive Marc Molinaro.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge has found probable cause that the Trump administration acted in contempt of court when officials last month defied his order to turn around two planes carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.
The administration’s “willful disobedience of judicial orders” without consequences would make “a solemn mockery” of “the Constitution itself,” U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote Wednesday.
Boasberg last month ordered that the government turn around two flights carrying more than 200 alleged Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador after the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little-to-no due process — by arguing that the gang is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States.
Authorities failed to turn the flights around.
Boasberg faulted the Trump administration for conducting a “hurried removal operation” on March 15 and 16 in the hours after he issued an order blocking the deportations and ordering the men returned to the United States.
“As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order,” he wrote.
Boasberg noted that he gave the Trump administration “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” yet “none of their responses has been satisfactory.”
While the Supreme Court ultimately vacated his court order, Judge Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration still defied the order during the three weeks it was in effect, even if the order suffered from a “legal defect.”
“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself,'” he wrote.
Boasberg gave the Trump Administration a one-week deadline to file “a declaration explaining the steps they have taken and will take to do so.”
The way to “purge” the potential finding of contempt, Boasberg said, would be to obey his initial order.
“The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding,” Boasberg wrote, referring to the temporary restraining order he issued.
“Per the terms of the TRO, the Government would not need to release any of those individuals, nor would it need to transport them back to the homeland. The Court will also give Defendants an opportunity to propose other methods of coming into compliance, which the Court will evaluate.”
If the Trump Administration does not wish to purge Boasberg’s contempt finding, the judge said he will “proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose “specific act or omission” caused the noncompliance.”
Boasberg said he will begin by requiring declarations from the government, and if those prove to be unsatisfactory, he will “proceed either to hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs.”
As a final potential step, Boasberg raised the remarkable prospect he could appoint an independent attorney to prosecute the government for its contempt.
“The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to “request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government,” Boasberg said. “If the Government “declines” or “the interest of justice requires,” the Court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., is in El Salvador to get answers about the wrongful deportation of a Maryland man by the Trump administration, he said in a video ahead of boarding a flight on Wednesday.
Van Hollen said he had been planning the trip for the last few days and that he hopes to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia in person and see his condition.
Abrego Garcia, who reportedly fled political persecution from El Salvador and was deported last month by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency following an “administrative error,” remains in the CECOT prison despite court orders requesting the U.S. government “facilitate” bringing him back to the United States.
“The goal of this mission is to let the Trump administration, to let the government of El Salvador know that we are going to keep fighting to bring Abrego Garcia home,” Van Hollen said in a video.
He posted another video after he landed and said he was on his way to meet with members of the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador.
It is unclear if anyone else is joining the senator on the trip.
Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member and was able to be deported because of President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration.
However, the Department of Justice has not made that accusation in court papers and admitted the deportation was an error. Abrego Garcia’s family and attorneys have been fighting the deportation for weeks in court.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that the 29-year-old father, who had no criminal record in the U.S., was illegally deported. However, Bondi has claimed El Salvador’s government is not giving him up.
“What bullies do is they begin by picking on the most vulnerable,” Van Hollen said.
Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Leaders We Deserve, a political organization led by Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor and Democratic National Committee Vice Chairman David Hogg, announced Wednesday that it will spend $20 million to help elect younger leaders — including primary challengers to House Democrats who are in safely Democratic seats.
The move puts Hogg, a member of party leadership as one of its vice chairs, at odds with the party establishment and other Democratic leaders, who usually shy away from supporting challengers to Democratic incumbents.
But it comes as Democratic-aligned voters express discontent with how the Democratic Party is responding to the second Trump administration — and as some within the party call for a new generation of leadership and representation in Congress amid consternation with some older House and Senate Democrats.
“While [President Donald] Trump creates new existential crises every day, too many elected leaders in the Democratic Party are either unwilling or unable to meet the moment,” Hogg, 25, said in a statement.
“We need a stronger Democratic Party that is ready to fight back,” he added. “Part of making that a reality is replacing ineffective, asleep-at-the-wheel members with Democrats who have the energy, passion, and vision to meet this moment with the urgency our country deserves.”
A few Democrats have already announced they will challenge longtime House members in the 2026 congressional primaries. Researcher and social media personality Kat Abughazaleh has announced she is mounting a primary challenge to 14-term Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. Schakowsky has not said whether she will run for reelection.
The announcement from Leaders We Deserve, a group Hogg co-founded in 2023 and of which he serves as president, did not name any specific candidates the group plans to support. The group said it will not challenge “front-line” members facing tough reelection battles against Republicans or “older Democratic leaders like Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi” who it said have been taking on Trump and Republicans successfully.
The announcement was first reported by the New York Times.
In a statement to ABC News, Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin thanked Hogg for his work for the party but reiterated the DNC’s position of not taking sides in primary elections.
“David Hogg is a passionate advocate and we are grateful for his service to the Democratic Party, whether it be in his role as a DNC Vice Chair or in an outside capacity,” Martin wrote. “In order to ensure we are as effective as possible at electing Democrats to office, it is the DNC’s longstanding position that primary voters — not the national party — determine their Democratic candidates for the general election.”
According to the DNC, the party does not intervene in primaries both to allow voters to express their views and to maintain relationships with candidates. The DNC also shared that Hogg was the only party officer not to sign a “neutrality policy” that mandates those officials do not take any actions that may throw their or the party’s impartiality into question.
The party said it will be figuring out unspecified next steps with Hogg and party committees.
Hogg was elected as one of the DNC’s vice chairs in the party’s February elections.
(WASHINGTON) — Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Wednesday that he’ll use a Senate procedure that allows home state senators to object to judicial nominees to attempt to block President Donald Trump’s picks for two keep prosecutor positions: the U.S. Attorneys for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
The blue slip process, which has long been honored by the Senate Judiciary Committee, asks for the signoff of home-state senators before proceeding with nominations for U.S. Attorney positions.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, is refusing to return his blue slip for the nominations of Jay Clayton to be the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and Joseph Nocella Jr. to be the lead prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York.
“Donald Trump has made clear he has no fidelity to the law and intends to use the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney offices and law enforcement as weapons to go after his perceived enemies,” Schumer said in a statement. “Such blatant and depraved political motivations are deeply corrosive to the rule of law and leaves me deeply skeptical of the Donald Trump’s intentions for these important positions. For that reason, I will not return the blue slip for the U.S. Attorney nominees for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.”
This blue slip tradition in the Senate is just that: a tradition, not a law.
It will be up to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley whether he ultimately honors this blue slip process in this case.
“The Judiciary Committee has long honored the traditional blue slip process for U.S. Attorney nominees,” a spokesperson for Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told ABC News when reached for comment on Schumer’s intention not to return his blue slip on the two New York U.S. attorneys.
Grassley recently told the New York Times he would honor the right of Senators to refuse return of their blue slips.
“The answer is yes,” Grassley said when asked whether he would honor the blue slip position of senators. “If they are from the state the nomination comes from.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi ; Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department has filed suit against Maine in an effort to challenge the state’s policy regarding transgender athletes competing in girls’ and women’s sports, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Wednesday.
The lawsuit alleges Maine’s policy violates Title IX and stems from a broader effort by the Trump administration to spotlight an issue that they see as politically damaging for Democrats.
“The State of Maine, through its Department of Education, is openly and defiantly flouting federal anti-discrimination law by enforcing policies that require girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions designated exclusively for girls,” the lawsuit said. “By prioritizing gender identity over biological reality, Maine’s policies deprive girl athletes of fair competition, deny them equal athletic opportunities, and expose them to heightened risks of physical injury and psychological harm.”
Bondi announced the lawsuit alongside anti-trans activist Riley Gaines and other parents and students from Maine who have objected to the state’s policies regarding transgender athletes.
“The Department of Justice will not sit by when women are discriminated against in sports. This is about sports. This is also about these young women’s personal safety,” Bondi said in remarks at DOJ. “I met many of these women throughout the past weeks and months, and what they have been through is horrific.”
The lawsuit is likely just the first in a series of legal challenges brought by the Trump administration, after Bondi previously sent warning letters in February to state officials in Maine, California and Minnesota ordering them to “comply with federal anti-discrimination laws that require them to keep men out of women’s sports.”
Maine’s Democratic Gov. Janet Mills has blasted the Trump administration’s efforts to strip federal funding from Maine as executive overreach.
“For decades — first as a District Attorney, as Attorney General, and now as Governor — I have fought tirelessly for the rights of women and girls, for the health and well-being of children and families, and defending the Constitution of Maine and the Constitution of the United States,” Mills responded in a statement Wednesday. “My Administration and Maine’s Attorney General will vigorously defend our state against the action announced today from the Department of Justice,” she said.
Earlier, she downplayed the issue of transgender athletes participating in girls’ and women’s sporting events.
“Because there are two, maybe two, trans athletes competing in Maine schools right now, they decided to shut off funding for the school nutrition program, the school lunch program, entirely,” Mills said in an interview this week on CBS affiliate WGME. “The law says if you don’t like what a state is doing over here, you can’t just take the funds away over here.”
In February, meeting with the nation’s governors at the White House, Trump discussed his executive order banning transgender athletes from women’s sports and asked Mills directly, “Are you not going to comply with that?”
She responded that she would comply with state and federal laws.
“Well, I’m — we are the federal law,” Trump said, adding, “Well, you better do it. You better do it because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t.”
Mills responded: “See you in court.”
“Good,” Trump replied. “I’ll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be an easy one. And enjoy your life after governor, because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics.”
(COBB COUNTY, GA) — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of President Donald Trump’s most loyal allies in the House, faced several protesters who were removed by police for disrupting her town hall on Tuesday.
Police said at least six attendees were escorted out without incident, while three others were arrested — two of whom were stunned with a Taser during their removal.
The event was held at the Acworth Community Center in Greene’s home state of Georgia on Tuesday, with disruptions breaking out almost immediately after the congresswoman took the stage.
“Well, welcome everyone,” Greene said, kicking off the meeting as police removed at least three protesters. “Thank you, Thank you to our great police officers… This is not a political rally. This is not a protest. If you stand up and want to protest, if you want to shout and chant, we will have you removed, just like that man was thrown out.”
At one point, a man was tased for not cooperating with police as they tried to escort him out for interrupting the meeting.
“This is a peaceful town hall. Now this is a peaceful town hall, ladies and gentlemen, this should not have to happen,” the Greene said in response.
While speaking at the town hall, Greene accused the media of “trying to defend an illegal alien that is a member of MS-13 that was deported to his home country, El Salvador. That is shameful and that should never happen,” she said, referring to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who ICE officials have said was sent to El Salvador by error in March.
Following this, another protester was removed from Greene’s event.
“Bye,” Greene said. “Just like that illegal alien,” she said, despite Abrego Garcia’s legal status.
Outside of the disruptions, Rep. Greene did receive continuous support from the audience, which had about 80 people in attendance. Outside the venue, protesters lined up on the street.
Following the rally, Greene told reporters the protesters were “out of line,” saying there was a place designated outside of the venue for the protesters “because we support their First Amendment right.”
(WASHINGTON) — In the nearly three months since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, lawyers challenging his actions in court have alleged that his administration has violated court orders on a half dozen occasions, according to court records reviewed by ABC News.
From unilaterally freezing federal funding to the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens, the clashes have raised concerns about the separation of powers and the potential for a constitutional crisis.
Plaintiffs suing the Trump administration have alleged the government violated or ignored court orders on at least six different occasions, but no judge so far has held a member of the Trump administration in contempt of court. On at least four occasions, judges have expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s compliance with court orders.
Lawyers with the Justice Department have vigorously defended the actions of the Trump administration and argued that federal officials have strictly complied with lawful court orders, while also questioning the legality of some orders. Each of the cases are ongoing or being appealed, so the district court orders may be vacated as higher courts weigh in.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to respect a court order even if a judge rules against parts of his agenda, though he has attempted to cast doubt on the authority of some judges.
“Well, I always abide by the courts and then I’ll have to appeal it,” Trump told ABC’s Rachel Scott in February, referencing cases involving Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. In those cases, Trump suggested a judge’s order “slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books. You know, if a person’s crooked and they get caught, other people see that and all of a sudden it becomes harder later on.”
The Trump Administration now faces arguably its most high-profile legal battle, as it attempts to keep Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Salvadoran custody despite the Supreme Court ordering his administration to facilitate his release.
Using the Alien Enemies Act to remove alleged members of Tren de Aragua
Last month, the Trump administration removed more than 100 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to a Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act despite a federal judge ordering they be returned to the U.S.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a directive that two planes carrying the men to El Salvador be returned to the United States on March 15. Despite both planes still being in the air at the time of the order, the planes landed in Honduras before flying to El Salvador.
Lawyers representing the Venezuelan men have argued that the Trump administration violated the court order, and Judge James Boasberg remarked that the government “acted in bad faith” when it rushed the deportation flights.
The Supreme Court vacated his order blocking any future removals under the Alien Enemies Act because the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction to bring a case in D.C. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Boasberg was considering beginning contempt proceedings.
Trump defended his use of the Alien Enemies Act – telling reporters last month that he has the authority to remove noncitizens under the law – and has repeatedly criticized Judge Boasberg for blocking the removals.
“[Secretary of State Marco Rubio has] the authority to get bad people out of our country. And you can’t stop that with a judge sitting behind a bench that has no idea what goes on, who happens to be a radical left lunatic,” Trump told ABC’s Karen Travers.
Removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
After the Trump administration acknowledged it had deported a Salvadoran native who was living in Maryland under protected legal status due to an “administrative error,” a federal judge ordered the government to facilitate his return to the United States.
After the Trump administration appealed the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Judge Paula Xinis “properly” required that the U.S. facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody; however, the high court ordered Judge Xinis determine what “deference” Trump is owed related to his conduct of foreign affairs.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Trump administration has doubled down on its allegation that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 — without providing any evidence — and claimed it lacks the authority to return him to the U.S. During a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday, Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele told reporters that he lacks the power to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
“The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” Bukele said.
Benjamin Osorio, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told ABC News that he believes the Trump administration is defying the court’s order and that a contempt order might be the only thing to prompt the U.S. government to return his client from El Salvador.
Before his meeting with Bukele, Trump told reporters that he would respect an order from the Supreme Court to return Abrego Garcia.
“If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court,” Trump said.
Removal of migrants to third countries
During a hearing last week, a federal judge gave lawyers with the Justice Department two weeks to provide more information about three recent removals of noncitizens to El Salvador that took place two days after he issued a temporary order blocking similar deportations to countries other than their place of origin without a hearing to raise concerns about their safety.
Judge Brian Murphy described the “potential violations of the temporary restraining order” as “concerning” and set an April 28 hearing to learn more about the deportations.
“This is something that is concerning to me,” Judge Murphy said. “I do think it’s something that we need to address.”
Lawyers with the Justice Department agreed to provide more information about the removals and defended the administration’s conduct.
Judge Murphy is considering extending his court order that prevents the Trump administration from removing noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin without allowing the noncitizens to raise concerns about their safety.
Two days after Judge Murphy temporarily blocked the deportations, the Trump administration announced that it had removed 17 alleged members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. According to the plaintiffs, some of the men on those flights had final orders of removal to Venezuela and were never given the right to challenge their removal to El Salvador.
Unilaterally freezing funding to states
In February, U.S. District Judge John McConnell said that a group of state attorneys general presented evidence that the Trump administration “continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds” to states despite a “clear and unambiguous” order barring them from blocking the funding.
He ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen funding” though the state attorneys general later provided evidence that the Trump administration continued to pause funding from FEMA. Many of the funding streams were restored in the months following Judge McConnell’s order.
Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued the limiting of funds was a lawful way to identify and limit alleged fraud.
Blocking FEMA grants
Two months after Judge McConnell ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze funding to states, he determined that the government “covertly” paused millions of dollars in FEMA funding in direct violation of a court order.
Judge McConnell ordered the Trump Administration to “immediately cease” its efforts to impede the disbursement of federal funds, finding the government directly violated his order.
Last month, a coalition of 22 attorneys general asked Judge McConnell to stop the freeze after they presented evidence that FEMA continued to restrict more than 215 federal grants despite a court order blocking Trump’s unilateral funding freeze.
Lawyers with the DOJ pushed back on the request, arguing that FEMA was “merely implementing a manual review process” of each grant.
Judge McConnell disagreed, finding that the states presented “undisputed evidence” that FEMA “essentially [imposed] an indefinite categorical pause on payments” in direct violation of his preliminary injunction. He said the manual review process cited by the Trump administration “violates” a preliminary injunction issued in the case.
Freezing billions in foreign aid
A federal judge in February determined that the Trump administration was improperly withholding nearly $2 billion in foreign aid despite an order to restore the funding.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali blocked the Trump administration from imposing a blanket freeze on funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, yet the freeze continued for weeks, according to lawyers representing the foreign aid nonprofits. Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued the funding freeze was necessary to identify and block potential fraud.
In an order, Judge Ali wrote that the Trump administration justified the freeze by advancing “an unbridled view of Executive power that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected—a view that flouts multiple statutes.”
After the Trump administration appealed the order, a divided U.S. Supreme Court denied the request to block the order, though the justices ordered the lower court to clarify its original order.
