update - judge blocks Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Education Department and orders agency to reinstate employees
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
US wants to withhold details in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. Judge will hear arguments
A federal judge in Maryland will hear arguments Friday over whether the Trump administration can invoke the state secrets privilege to withhold information about bringing Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador in April and has since directed the administration to provide documents and testimony showing what it has done, if anything, to comply.
Trump administration lawyers claim many of those details are protected, including sensitive diplomatic negotiations. Revealing the specifics would harm national security because foreign governments “would be less likely to work cooperatively with the United States,” they argued in a brief to the court.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers contend the administration hasn’t shown “the slightest effort” toward retrieving him after his mistaken deportation. And they point to President Donald Trump’s interview last month with ABC News, in which he said he could bring Abrego Garcia back but won’t.
FILE - President Donald Trump holds a document with notes about Kilmar Abrego Garcia as he speaks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House, April 18, 2025, in Washington.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)© The Associated Press
“Even as the Government speaks freely about Abrego Garcia in public, in this litigation it insists on secrecy,” Abrego Garcia’s lawyers wrote to the court.
The focus of Friday’s hearing will be a legal doctrine that is more often used in cases involving the military and spy agencies. Xinis’s ruling could impact the central question looming over the case: Has the Trump administration followed her order to bring back Abrego Garcia?
The Trump administration deported the Maryland construction worker to El Salvador in March. The expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he faced likely persecution by a local gang that had terrorized his family.
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, speaks during a news conference at CASA's Multicultural Center in Hyattsville, Md., Friday, April 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
Abrego Garcia’s American wife sued, and Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back.
Xinis later lambasted the administration for failing to explain what it has done to retrieve him and instructed the government to prove it was following her order. The Trump administration appealed, but the appeals court backed Xinis in a blistering order.
The debate over state secrets privilege is the latest development in the case.
In a legal brief filed Monday, Trump administration attorneys said they provided extensive information, including 1,027 pages of documents, to show they’re following the judge’s order.
They argued that Abrego Garcia’s legal team is now “attempting to pry into the privileged inner workings of the U.S. government apparatus and its communications with a foreign government.”
“Nearly all the additional materials Plaintiffs demand are protected by the state secrets and deliberative process privileges and so cannot be produced,” U.S. attorneys wrote.
In their brief, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys urged the judge to be skeptical, writing that the state secrets privilege “is not for hiding governmental blunders or malfeasance.”
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers noted that U.S. attorneys claim in court to be following Xinis's order, while “senior officials from the President on down were saying precisely the opposite to the American public.”
For example, they cited an April 16 statement from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who said, “He is not coming back to our country.”
“Over and over again, official statements by the Government — in congressional testimony, television interviews, and social media — confirm that producing this information would not imperil national security,” Abrego Garcia’s attorneys wrote.
The hearing is scheduled to start at 1 p.m. in federal court in Greenbelt.
Trump administration officials have said Abrego Garcia was deported based on a 2019 accusation from Maryland police that he was an MS-13 gang member. Abrego Garcia denied the allegation and was never charged with a crime, his attorneys said.
The administration later acknowledged that Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador was " an administrative error ” because of the immigration judge's 2019 order. But Trump and others have continued to insist that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13.
Ben Finley And Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press
A federal judge in Maryland will hear arguments Friday over whether the Trump administration can invoke the state secrets privilege to withhold information about bringing Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador in April and has since directed the administration to provide documents and testimony showing what it has done, if anything, to comply.
Trump administration lawyers claim many of those details are protected, including sensitive diplomatic negotiations. Revealing the specifics would harm national security because foreign governments “would be less likely to work cooperatively with the United States,” they argued in a brief to the court.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers contend the administration hasn’t shown “the slightest effort” toward retrieving him after his mistaken deportation. And they point to President Donald Trump’s interview last month with ABC News, in which he said he could bring Abrego Garcia back but won’t.
FILE - President Donald Trump holds a document with notes about Kilmar Abrego Garcia as he speaks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House, April 18, 2025, in Washington.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)© The Associated Press
“Even as the Government speaks freely about Abrego Garcia in public, in this litigation it insists on secrecy,” Abrego Garcia’s lawyers wrote to the court.
The focus of Friday’s hearing will be a legal doctrine that is more often used in cases involving the military and spy agencies. Xinis’s ruling could impact the central question looming over the case: Has the Trump administration followed her order to bring back Abrego Garcia?
The Trump administration deported the Maryland construction worker to El Salvador in March. The expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he faced likely persecution by a local gang that had terrorized his family.
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, speaks during a news conference at CASA's Multicultural Center in Hyattsville, Md., Friday, April 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
Abrego Garcia’s American wife sued, and Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back.
Xinis later lambasted the administration for failing to explain what it has done to retrieve him and instructed the government to prove it was following her order. The Trump administration appealed, but the appeals court backed Xinis in a blistering order.
The debate over state secrets privilege is the latest development in the case.
In a legal brief filed Monday, Trump administration attorneys said they provided extensive information, including 1,027 pages of documents, to show they’re following the judge’s order.
They argued that Abrego Garcia’s legal team is now “attempting to pry into the privileged inner workings of the U.S. government apparatus and its communications with a foreign government.”
“Nearly all the additional materials Plaintiffs demand are protected by the state secrets and deliberative process privileges and so cannot be produced,” U.S. attorneys wrote.
In their brief, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys urged the judge to be skeptical, writing that the state secrets privilege “is not for hiding governmental blunders or malfeasance.”
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers noted that U.S. attorneys claim in court to be following Xinis's order, while “senior officials from the President on down were saying precisely the opposite to the American public.”
For example, they cited an April 16 statement from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who said, “He is not coming back to our country.”
“Over and over again, official statements by the Government — in congressional testimony, television interviews, and social media — confirm that producing this information would not imperil national security,” Abrego Garcia’s attorneys wrote.
The hearing is scheduled to start at 1 p.m. in federal court in Greenbelt.
Trump administration officials have said Abrego Garcia was deported based on a 2019 accusation from Maryland police that he was an MS-13 gang member. Abrego Garcia denied the allegation and was never charged with a crime, his attorneys said.
The administration later acknowledged that Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador was " an administrative error ” because of the immigration judge's 2019 order. But Trump and others have continued to insist that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13.
Ben Finley And Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press
Another strike for Donald Trump Friday as a federal judge blocked the administration from cutting nearly $11 billion in grants "for a wide range of public health programs," related to infectious diseases, mental health, substance abuse, and other concerns, according to The Boston Globe.
Last month, attorneys general in 24 states and the District of Columbia accused Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of moving to eliminate the funds "without warning and valid legal explanation."
U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy granted a preliminary injunction on Friday to block the cuts.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
Judge McElroy wrote in a memorandum that cuts “would constrain the States’ infectious disease research, thwart treatment efforts to those struggling with mental health and addiction, and impact the availability of vaccines to children, the elderly, and those living in rural communities,” among other initiatives.
She continued, “There is ample evidence to support the States’ position that the Public Health Funding Decision is causing immediate damage to their healthcare programs and the safety of their residents,” McElroy wrote. “While the Court acknowledges HHS’ position that it may be unable to recover the grant funds if it later prevails, Congress’s direction that the funds remain intact and the States’ reliance on the continuation of the funding overshadows that argument.”
On Friday, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha decried the cuts as a “hacksaw approach to government reduction.”
“If we don’t have our health, we don’t have anything, and that’s why today’s preliminary injunction is such a critical win,” Neronha said.
A spokesperson for HHS told the Globe in an email that the agency does not comment on litigation.
Read the Boston Globe article here.
Bad day: Trump takes yet another hit in court over 'hacksaw approach'
Last month, attorneys general in 24 states and the District of Columbia accused Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of moving to eliminate the funds "without warning and valid legal explanation."
U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy granted a preliminary injunction on Friday to block the cuts.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
Judge McElroy wrote in a memorandum that cuts “would constrain the States’ infectious disease research, thwart treatment efforts to those struggling with mental health and addiction, and impact the availability of vaccines to children, the elderly, and those living in rural communities,” among other initiatives.
She continued, “There is ample evidence to support the States’ position that the Public Health Funding Decision is causing immediate damage to their healthcare programs and the safety of their residents,” McElroy wrote. “While the Court acknowledges HHS’ position that it may be unable to recover the grant funds if it later prevails, Congress’s direction that the funds remain intact and the States’ reliance on the continuation of the funding overshadows that argument.”
On Friday, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha decried the cuts as a “hacksaw approach to government reduction.”
“If we don’t have our health, we don’t have anything, and that’s why today’s preliminary injunction is such a critical win,” Neronha said.
A spokesperson for HHS told the Globe in an email that the agency does not comment on litigation.
Read the Boston Globe article here.
Bad day: Trump takes yet another hit in court over 'hacksaw approach'
More than a month after the Supreme Court agreed that Donald Trump’s administration must be ordered to “facilitate” the release of a wrongfully deported Salvadoran immigrant, the government is refusing to do so — and arguing with a federal judge that they don’t have to.
The weeks-long court battle is leaving a judge’s head “spinning,” Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis told attorneys on Friday.
Last month, Supreme Court justices unanimously agreed that the government’s removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was “illegal.”
Now, government attorneys are sparring with Judge Xinis to try to conceal what, if anything, the administration is doing to return him, and why that information needs to be kept secret.
Meanwhile, administration officials are “shouting from the rooftops” in public about ensuring that Abrego Garcia never returns to the United States, according to his attorneys.
“He will never walk freely in the U.S.,” Department of Justice lawyer Jonathan Guynn told District Judge Paula Xinis in a Maryland courtroom on Friday.
“That sounds to me like an admission you will not take steps” to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return,” Xinis replied.
“That’s about as clear as it can get,” said Gyunn.
Despite government attorneys and the White House admitting that Abrego Garcia was deported from Maryland “due to an administrative error,” the Justice Department is now clashing with its own determination — and multiple court rulings from federal judges in the Supreme Court — about the legality of his removal.
“Abrego Garcia was removed without lawful authority — you conceded it,” Xinis told Justice Department lawyers on Friday.
“Not to split hairs with your honor, but he was removed lawfully,” Guynn said. “He shouldn’t be in the United States.”
“He was removed in error,” Xinis replied.
Guynn later conceded that he was reported in “error” but said it did not rise to government “misconduct.”
Government attorneys have produced more than 1,400 documents in the case, but Abrego Garcia’s legal team has only received 164, most of which are photocopies of their own filings.
“My head is spinning,” Xinis told the court at one point.
Lawyers for Abrego Garcia’s family asked the judge to keep the government on “as tight a leash as possible” to ensure the administration is responding to court-ordered questions.
Abrego Garcia’s wife Jennifer Vasquez Sura, center, speaks outside a Maryland courthouse on May 16 as demonstrators gather in support for her husband’s release from a Salvadoran prison (EPA)
Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador as a teenager in 2011 and was working as a sheet-metal apprentice in Maryland, where he has been living with his wife and 5-year-old child, both U.S. citizens. The couple is also raising two other children from a previous relationship.
After a traffic stop in March, he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and then deported to El Salvador’s brutal Terrorism Confinement Center. He was later moved to another prison designed to imprison non-gang members.
Trump’s allies and administration officials have repeatedly sought to justify his detention over allegations of criminal activity and gang membership, which were raised only after he was summarily deported. Democrats and legal analysts argue the administration could return Abrego Garcia and then use that alleged evidence against him in normal immigration court removal hearings, but the government is refusing to do so.
Instead, Justice Department lawyers and Trump administration officials have raised a “state secrets” privilege to try to avoid answering questions about the government’s relationship with El Salvador and conversations about the arrangements among officials.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers argued that the government hasn’t shown even “the slightest effort” to fulfill court orders to retrieve him, and even cited Trump’s interview last month with ABC News in which he said he could bring Abrego Garcia back but won’t.
On Friday, Xinis described the government’s reasoning for withholding that information as “take my word for it.”
“There’s simply no details,” she said. “This is basically ‘take my word for it.’”
Judge spars with Trump administration over release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘My head is spinning’
The weeks-long court battle is leaving a judge’s head “spinning,” Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis told attorneys on Friday.
Last month, Supreme Court justices unanimously agreed that the government’s removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was “illegal.”
Now, government attorneys are sparring with Judge Xinis to try to conceal what, if anything, the administration is doing to return him, and why that information needs to be kept secret.
Meanwhile, administration officials are “shouting from the rooftops” in public about ensuring that Abrego Garcia never returns to the United States, according to his attorneys.
“He will never walk freely in the U.S.,” Department of Justice lawyer Jonathan Guynn told District Judge Paula Xinis in a Maryland courtroom on Friday.
“That sounds to me like an admission you will not take steps” to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return,” Xinis replied.
“That’s about as clear as it can get,” said Gyunn.
Despite government attorneys and the White House admitting that Abrego Garcia was deported from Maryland “due to an administrative error,” the Justice Department is now clashing with its own determination — and multiple court rulings from federal judges in the Supreme Court — about the legality of his removal.
“Abrego Garcia was removed without lawful authority — you conceded it,” Xinis told Justice Department lawyers on Friday.
“Not to split hairs with your honor, but he was removed lawfully,” Guynn said. “He shouldn’t be in the United States.”
“He was removed in error,” Xinis replied.
Guynn later conceded that he was reported in “error” but said it did not rise to government “misconduct.”
Government attorneys have produced more than 1,400 documents in the case, but Abrego Garcia’s legal team has only received 164, most of which are photocopies of their own filings.
“My head is spinning,” Xinis told the court at one point.
Lawyers for Abrego Garcia’s family asked the judge to keep the government on “as tight a leash as possible” to ensure the administration is responding to court-ordered questions.
Abrego Garcia’s wife Jennifer Vasquez Sura, center, speaks outside a Maryland courthouse on May 16 as demonstrators gather in support for her husband’s release from a Salvadoran prison (EPA)
Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador as a teenager in 2011 and was working as a sheet-metal apprentice in Maryland, where he has been living with his wife and 5-year-old child, both U.S. citizens. The couple is also raising two other children from a previous relationship.
After a traffic stop in March, he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and then deported to El Salvador’s brutal Terrorism Confinement Center. He was later moved to another prison designed to imprison non-gang members.
Trump’s allies and administration officials have repeatedly sought to justify his detention over allegations of criminal activity and gang membership, which were raised only after he was summarily deported. Democrats and legal analysts argue the administration could return Abrego Garcia and then use that alleged evidence against him in normal immigration court removal hearings, but the government is refusing to do so.
Instead, Justice Department lawyers and Trump administration officials have raised a “state secrets” privilege to try to avoid answering questions about the government’s relationship with El Salvador and conversations about the arrangements among officials.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers argued that the government hasn’t shown even “the slightest effort” to fulfill court orders to retrieve him, and even cited Trump’s interview last month with ABC News in which he said he could bring Abrego Garcia back but won’t.
On Friday, Xinis described the government’s reasoning for withholding that information as “take my word for it.”
“There’s simply no details,” she said. “This is basically ‘take my word for it.’”
Judge spars with Trump administration over release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘My head is spinning’
A top adviser to the director of national intelligence ordered a senior analyst to redo an assessment of the relationship between Venezuela’s government and a gang after intelligence findings undercut the White House’s justification for deporting migrants, according to officials.
President Trump’s use of a wartime law to send Venezuelan migrants to a brutal prison in El Salvador without due process relies on a claim that U.S. intelligence agencies think is wrong. But behind the scenes, a political appointee told a career official to rework the assessment, a direction that allies of the intelligence analyst said amounted to pressure to change the findings.
Mr. Trump on March 15 invoked the law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily remove people accused of being members of the gang, Tren de Aragua. The rarely used act appears to require a link to a foreign state, and he claimed that Venezuela’s government had directed the gang to commit crimes inside the United States.
On March 20, The New York Times reported that an intelligence assessment in late February contradicted that claim. It detailed many reasons that the intelligence community as a whole concluded that the gang was not acting under the Venezuelan government’s control. The F.B.I. partly dissented, maintaining that the gang had some links to Venezuela’s government based on information all the other agencies did not find credible.
The administration was alarmed by the disclosure. The next day, a Friday, the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, announced a criminal leak investigation, characterizing The Times’s detailed description of the intelligence assessment as “inaccurate” and “false” while insisting that Mr. Trump’s proclamation was “supported by fact, law, and common sense.”
The following Monday, Joe Kent, the acting chief of staff for Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, told a senior intelligence analyst to do a new assessment of the relationship between Venezuela’s government and the gang, the officials said. The analyst, Michael Collins, was serving as the acting chair of the National Intelligence Council at the time.
An official who has reviewed messages about the assessment said Mr. Kent made the request to Mr. Collins in an email, asking him to “rethink” the earlier analysis. The official said Mr. Kent was not politicizing the process, but giving his assessment and asking the intelligence officials to take into account the flows of migrants across the border during the Biden administration.
The National Intelligence Council is an elite internal think tank that reports to Ms. Gabbard and that policymakers can commission to undertake special analytical projects. The council canvasses spy agencies across the executive branch for its information.
While officials close to Ms. Gabbard said Mr. Kent’s request was entirely appropriate, other intelligence officials said they saw it as an effort to produce a torqued narrative that would support Mr. Trump’s agenda. But after re-examining the relevant evidence collected by agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the council on April 7 reaffirmed the original findings.
Inside the administration, even some officials who do not think Mr. Kent injected politics into the intelligence report are angry for what they see as a blundering intervention. Little new information had been collected in the month after the original assessment and his request for a redo, so there was no reason to expect the council to come up with different findings.
Sign up to get Maggie Haberman's articles emailed to you. Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent reporting on President Trump. Get it sent to your inbox.
From the beginning, politics surrounded the request for an intelligence assessment.
The original assessment stemmed from a White House request, according to former American officials.
It is not clear who specifically inside the White House made the request.
Inside the administration, Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s homeland security adviser, spearheads immigration policy. He has developed numerous ways to leverage existing laws — sometimes via aggressive interpretations — to better seal the border and accelerate deportations. Invoking the Alien Enemies Act to avoid time-consuming asylum and deportation hearings is one of those innovations.
In response to the White House request, Mr. Kent asked the National Intelligence Council to produce its initial analysis. The resulting report was dated Feb. 26, according to officials familiar with it.
Image
Stephen Miller, the homeland security adviser, has developed numerous ways to leverage existing laws, such as the Alien Enemies Act, to avoid time-consuming asylum and deportation hearings and accelerate deportations.Credit...Eric Lee/The New York Times
Details remain unclear of the White House deliberations that led to Mr. Trump, two weeks later, signing a proclamation that made purportedly factual findings that contradicted the executive branch intelligence community’s understanding of what was true.
After the assessment came to light and Mr. Kent asked Mr. Collins to rethink that analysis, Mr. Collins agreed to produce an updated assessment, according to people briefed on the events.
Some intelligence officials took Mr. Kent’s intervention as an attempt to politicize the findings and push them in line with the Justice Department arguments and the Trump administration policy. Mr. Collins, according to those officials, worked to navigate the politics and to protect the analytic integrity of the National Intelligence Council’s work as he began drafting a “sense of the community memo.”
The officials who described the matter spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. Intelligence officials declined to make Mr. Collins available for an interview.
Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said requesting the intelligence assessment on the gang’s ties to the Venezuelan government was “common practice.” She also defended Mr. Kent, saying, without detail, that the timeline presented in this article was “false and fabricated.”
“It is the deep state’s latest effort to attack this administration from within with an orchestrated op detached from reality,” Ms. Coleman said.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Trump’s policy on deporting Venezuelans to El Salvador had made America safer. “President Trump rightfully designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization based on intelligence assessments and, frankly, common sense,” she said.
After Mr. Trump sent planeloads of Venezuelans to El Salvador, a complex series of court fights have erupted and courts have blocked, for now, further use of the act for deportations. On Friday, the Supreme Court extended the freeze.
As the National Intelligence Council drafted the second analysis, multiple officials said, Mr. Collins and his colleagues tried to describe how most of the spy agencies had reached their consensus conclusion doubting any direct connection between the Venezuelan government and Tren de Aragua, and why the F.B.I. saw things partly differently.
The memo, dated April 7, concluded that the Venezuelan government “probably does not have a policy of cooperating with T.D.A. and is not directing T.D.A. movement to and operations in the United States.” It detailed why the intelligence community as a whole thought that, echoing accounts of the February assessment, like how the government treats Tren de Aragua as a threat and how the gang’s decentralized makeup would make it logistically challenging for it to carry out instructions.
The memo also went into greater detail about a partial dissent by the F.B.I. in a way that made clear why most of the intelligence community thought the bureau was wrong.
F.B.I. analysts largely agreed with the consensus assessment, the memo said, but they also thought that “some Venezuelan government officials” had helped gang members migrate to other countries, including the United States, and used them as proxies.
The basis of that conclusion came from law enforcement interviews of people who had been arrested in the United States — and “most” of the intelligence community judged those reports “not credible.”
The existence of the council’s memo and its bottom-line findings came to light in a Washington Post article on April 17. Publicly, the Trump administration and its supporters and influencers have reacted by vilifying Mr. Collins.
On April 20, Laura Loomer, a far-right activist who successfully lobbied the administration to fire other security officials, attacked the National Intelligence Council on social media as “career anti-Trump bureaucrats” who “need to be replaced if they want to promote open borders.” In the same post, she pasted images of Mr. Collins’s LinkedIn profile and of an Associated Press article about the council’s memo.
Three days later, Ms. Gabbard and her deputy chief of staff revealed on social media that they had made a criminal leak referral about the Post article. And, as reported by Fox News this week, Ms. Gabbard also removed Mr. Collins and his deputy from leading the council.
Image
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, and her circle have amplified posts portraying the National Intelligence Council, an elite internal think tank, as a hive of biased, deep-state bureaucrats.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times
As discussion of the removals circulated, Ms. Gabbard and her circle have amplified posts portraying the council as a hive of biased, deep-state bureaucrats.
An official briefed on the matter has denied that Mr. Collins’s removal was connected to the Venezuela assessment or to Ms. Loomer. But other officials have said they believe Mr. Collins has been made a scapegoat.
When the council produced a draft memo, Mr. Kent insisted on several edits to its final form. The details of his changes remain unclear.
But his reaction to the final memo was surprising, the officials said: Mr. Kent was happy about it, and pushed to have it declassified so that it could be discussed publicly, the officials said.
Mr. Kent’s request for declassification set in motion a chain of events that led to the agency’s release of the report this month in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Because the memo directly contradicts what Mr. Trump claimed — and is now public as an officially acknowledged document — it is generally seen as a legal and public relations fiasco for the administration.
The official who had reviewed the messages about the assessment said Mr. Kent’s reaction, recorded in emails to Mr. Collins, is clear evidence that he was not politicizing the process but merely wanted a fuller discussion of what intelligence agencies knew and the F.B.I.’s take on the issue. But other current and former officials questioned that narrative. Why, they asked, if Mr. Kent was pleased with the redone assessment, was Mr. Collins fired?
It is not entirely clear why Mr. Kent seemed to believe that the memo supported Mr. Trump’s claim. But he and other officials who shared his view were focused on the section exploring the F.B.I.’s partial dissent.
A line says that reports generated by U.S. law enforcement agencies have “the most focus on T.D.A. and its activities in the United States” because, unlike purely foreign intelligence agencies like the C.I.A., they can interrogate domestic prisoners.
But the memo also stressed multiple reasons to be skeptical. Among other things, because of their legal troubles, detainees had an incentive to fabricate “valuable” information, the memo said. And, it said, agencies had not observed the Venezuelan government directing the gang, which would likely require extensive communications, coordination and funding between government officials and gang leaders “that we would collect.”
Mr. Kent has a history of embracing alternative versions of reality that align with his political views but are not supported by evidence. For example, as recently as his confirmation hearing in April, he promoted the conspiracy theory that the F.B.I. secretly instigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol by Trump supporters trying to block Congress from certifying Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s electoral victory.
Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.
Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for The Times, reporting on President Trump.
Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy for The Times.
See more on: Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump, Stephen Miller
In a strongly worded ruling against Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said that the move "represented a gross usurpation of power."
According to the Hill, the judge also issued an injunction barring officials from DOGE and other Trump administration representatives from accessing USIP's facilities or systems, effectively halting their involvement with the institute.
The order nullified the administration's decision to dismiss the USIP board members and its president, confirming that they continue to hold their official roles. The appointment of individuals by DOGE was also overturned, requiring their removal from the board.
READ MORE: 'Betrayed': Alarm sounded as GOP 'plotted behind closed doors to hurt even more families'
The judge said President Donald Trump and his subordinates used "acts of force" and threatened officers.
“The President’s efforts here to take over an organization outside of those bounds, contrary to statute established by Congress and by acts of force and threat using local and federal law enforcement officers, represented a gross usurpation of power and a way of conducting government affairs that unnecessarily traumatized the committed leadership and employees of USIP, who deserved better,” Howell said in the ruling.
"At most, USIP is an external partner to, rather than an arm of, the Executive branch. USIP thus does not wield the President’s Article II power and cannot be considered part of the Executive branch for removal purposes," the ruling noted.
"USIP’s existence outside of the Executive branch is the end of the inquiry," the judge wrote in the order.
READ MORE: A dangerous new lie is being peddled by Trump's toadies
In March, the Trump administration initiated a controversial move to dismantle the congressionally established nonprofit organization. The administration removed the majority of USIP's board members and appointed Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official, as the new president.
Subsequently, personnel from DOGE attempted to seize control of USIP's headquarters.
'Gross usurpation of power': Judge rips Trump in ruling striking down agency takeover
According to the Hill, the judge also issued an injunction barring officials from DOGE and other Trump administration representatives from accessing USIP's facilities or systems, effectively halting their involvement with the institute.
The order nullified the administration's decision to dismiss the USIP board members and its president, confirming that they continue to hold their official roles. The appointment of individuals by DOGE was also overturned, requiring their removal from the board.
READ MORE: 'Betrayed': Alarm sounded as GOP 'plotted behind closed doors to hurt even more families'
The judge said President Donald Trump and his subordinates used "acts of force" and threatened officers.
“The President’s efforts here to take over an organization outside of those bounds, contrary to statute established by Congress and by acts of force and threat using local and federal law enforcement officers, represented a gross usurpation of power and a way of conducting government affairs that unnecessarily traumatized the committed leadership and employees of USIP, who deserved better,” Howell said in the ruling.
"At most, USIP is an external partner to, rather than an arm of, the Executive branch. USIP thus does not wield the President’s Article II power and cannot be considered part of the Executive branch for removal purposes," the ruling noted.
"USIP’s existence outside of the Executive branch is the end of the inquiry," the judge wrote in the order.
READ MORE: A dangerous new lie is being peddled by Trump's toadies
In March, the Trump administration initiated a controversial move to dismantle the congressionally established nonprofit organization. The administration removed the majority of USIP's board members and appointed Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official, as the new president.
Subsequently, personnel from DOGE attempted to seize control of USIP's headquarters.
'Gross usurpation of power': Judge rips Trump in ruling striking down agency takeover
A federal judge dealt Donald Trump another legal blow on Monday, giving his administration a deadline of Wednesday afternoon to facilitate contact between a Venezuelan man deported to El Salvador and his lawyers, according to a report.
Judge Keith Ellison in Texas gave the federal government 24 hours to confirm the location of Widmer Josneyder Agelviz Sanguino, 24, and 48 hours to “restore and help maintain attorney-client communication” with him, NBC News reported.
“This shows that the court is as concerned as we are as to the whereabouts of this individual and the illegal justification for his continued detention,” said Javier Rivera, Sanguino's lawyer.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the order, which appears to be the first in which the administration has been ordered to facilitate contact between inmates and their lawyers, according to the report.
Previously, the Supreme Court had ordered the federal government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a court order explicitly barring as such.
Trump admin dealt new legal blow: 'Court is as concerned as we are'
Judge Keith Ellison in Texas gave the federal government 24 hours to confirm the location of Widmer Josneyder Agelviz Sanguino, 24, and 48 hours to “restore and help maintain attorney-client communication” with him, NBC News reported.
“This shows that the court is as concerned as we are as to the whereabouts of this individual and the illegal justification for his continued detention,” said Javier Rivera, Sanguino's lawyer.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the order, which appears to be the first in which the administration has been ordered to facilitate contact between inmates and their lawyers, according to the report.
Previously, the Supreme Court had ordered the federal government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a court order explicitly barring as such.
Trump admin dealt new legal blow: 'Court is as concerned as we are'
BOSTON — The Trump administration “unquestionably” violated a court order when it put seven men on a deportation flight bound for South Sudan, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, suggesting that administration officials may have committed criminal contempt.
The rebuke from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy is the latest episode in an intensifying clash between the administration and the judiciary over President Donald Trump’s campaign to carry out rapid deportations while evading court oversight.
Three federal judges have now castigated the administration for circumventing, or outright defying, court orders that have sought to block or reverse aspects of Trump’s deportation agenda. And several others — including a majority of the Supreme Court — have scolded the administration for attempting to violate immigrants’ due process rights.
At a court hearing Wednesday, Murphy accused immigration officials of defying his earlier directives to provide “meaningful” due process to people whom the administration is trying to deport to countries where they have no ties and could face violence.
“It was impossible for these people to have a meaningful opportunity to object to their transfer to South Sudan,” said Murphy, a Biden appointee.
Last month, Murphy barred the Trump administration from deporting people to so-called “third-party countries,” rather than their countries of origin, without first giving them a meaningful chance to challenge their deportation on the basis that they might be killed or tortured there. Despite that ruling, the administration on Tuesday morning gathered detainees who were being held in immigration custody in Texas and put them on a plane to be deported. The men were told they were being sent to South Sudan, one of the most dangerous and war-torn nations on Earth. They were given only about 12 hours notice of the deportations and no ability to consult with their lawyers.
South Sudan, a landlocked country in East Africa, is plagued by a food shortage, ethnic conflict and violent crime. The State Department strongly recommends that Americans avoid traveling there.
Despite notifying the deportees that South Sudan was their destination, Homeland Security officials subsequently declined to say whether the plane had arrived there or had landed in an alternate destination while Murphy considered whether to order the plane’s return.
A police spokesperson in South Sudan, Maj. Gen. James Monday Enoka, told the Associated Press Wednesday that no migrants had arrived in the country. Enoka said any arriving deportees would be investigated and “re-deported to their correct country” if found not to be South Sudanese, AP added.
The hasty deportations fell far short of the due process requirements in Murphy’s April ruling, the judge said Wednesday.
“I believe it to be obviously insufficient,” Murphy said, even as he acknowledged that his April ruling did not set a specific amount of advance notice before proceeding with third-country deportations.
The hearing took place as the deported men apparently sat on the plane after it had landed. The judge on Tuesday issued an emergency order that they not be discharged from U.S. custody without his permission.
Lawyers for the men asked Murphy to order the plane returned to the United States. The judge did not immediately grant that request; he said he was still considering how to ensure that the men could be properly advised of their right to object to being turned over to South Sudan. Under the international Convention Against Torture, immigrants are protected from being deported to countries where they are likely to face torture.
Murphy also said he would consider whether the administration’s conduct was “criminally contemptuous” but would save that determination for another day.
The public portion of Wednesday’s hearing came after the judge met with lawyers for both sides behind closed doors for more than 45 minutes, after a government lawyer warned about “serious operational concerns” with continuing to hold the plane on the ground with U.S. immigration officers and the deportees aboard.
Earlier in the day, in Washington, senior Trump administration officials attacked Murphy at a press conference, accusing “a local judge in Massachusetts” of “trying to force the United States to bring back these uniquely barbaric monsters.”
Appearing before a backdrop of photos of the deported men, top Homeland Security officials described the deportations as the culmination of an ongoing “diplomatic and military” operation that remained partially classified. But they said each of the deported men, whose names and backgrounds the administration subsequently released, had been convicted of serious violent felonies like rape and murder.
“It is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said. “These are the monsters that the district judge is trying to protect.”
During the court hearing, Justice Department attorneys pointed to a 2020 Supreme Court decision that upheld expedited deportation procedures for some foreigners that they said resulted in being expelled from the country within hours.
However, Murphy said the situation in that case of a Sri Lankan citizen intercepted at the border with Mexico was “not remotely similar” to that of the seven deportees being abruptly transferred to South Sudan.
Of the seven men sent to South Sudan on Tuesday, two are from Cuba, two are from Myanmar, one is from Laos, one is from Mexico and one is from Vietnam. One citizen of South Sudan was also aboard the flight, DHS officials said. The deportees were arrested by immigration authorities in the U.S. between January and earlier this month, the officials said.
Murphy noted that a recent Supreme Court decision — last week’s ruling in a case challenging President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act — concluded that 24 hours notice of deportation was insufficient to provide a meaningful opportunity for a challenge.
“Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the Supreme Court’s majority wrote in that decision.
The Trump administration has faced repeated claims that it has defied court orders since the president returned to the White House in January.
A federal judge in Washington is considering launching contempt proceedings in connection with the administration’s handling of deportation flights in March that the judge ordered halted and returned to the U.S. A federal judge in Maryland has also indicated she believes the administration is not complying with her order to facilitate the release and return to the U.S. of a Salvadoran man sent back to his home country despite an immigration court order forbidding that.
The administration has also faced allegations that it slow-walked compliance with court orders restoring funding for various grant programs judges ordered reinstated.
Trump has said the administration complies with the courts’ orders, even as he has bitterly denounced many of them and the judges who issued them.
Garrity reported from Boston. Cheney and Gerstein reported from Washington.
A day after a federal appeals court affirmed a court order directing the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a deported 20-year-old Venezuelan man to the United States, the judge overseeing the case has ordered the administration to report "the steps they have taken" to do so.
The man, identified in court records by the pseudonym "Cristian," challenged his removal after he was sent in mid-March on a flight to El Salvador after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, found in April that Cristian's removal violated a class action settlement on behalf of individuals who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors then later sought asylum, and she directed the government to take steps toward "aiding, assisting or making easier" Cristian's release and return -- similar to the remedy ordered by the judge in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
MORE: Appeals court sides with Venezuelan man seeking return to US from El Salvador
Judge Gallagher on Tuesday said she wants the government to provide, by May 27, a status report that includes Cristian's current physical location and custodial status; what steps, if any, defendants have taken to facilitate Cristian's return to the United States; and what additional steps defendants will take, and when, to facilitate Cristian's return.
This is the second time that Gallagher, a 2019 Trump appointee, has asked the government to provide this information; the previous time the government filed a motion asking Gallagher to vacate her order, which she denied. The government then appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of the order, which was denied on Monday.
In her April ruling, Gallagher determined that Cristian's removal to El Salvador was in breach of an existing settlement agreement, finalized in 2024, that protected migrants who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors from deportation until there was a final determination on their asylum claims.
The administration has argued -- unsuccessfully thus far -- that Cristian's removal under the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation was not a violation of the settlement agreement, and that Cristian is an admitted Tren de Aragua member, which he denies.
A Salvadoran soldier stands guard at the CECOT prison, in Tecoluca, El Salvador April 4, 2025.
Jose Cabezas/Reuters
Responding to Monday's ruling by the 4th Circuit, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement, "We strongly disagree with the Court's ruling. No error was made in this individual's return. This alien is a self-admitted Tren de Aragua gang member and illegal alien from Venezuela. Along with millions of other illegal aliens, he crossed our border illegally under the previous administration."
"The President and Secretary Noem will not allow a foreign terrorist organization to operate on American soil," McLaughlin said. "If the court forces his return, he will be removed again."
Related Topics
abcnews.go.com
The man, identified in court records by the pseudonym "Cristian," challenged his removal after he was sent in mid-March on a flight to El Salvador after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, found in April that Cristian's removal violated a class action settlement on behalf of individuals who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors then later sought asylum, and she directed the government to take steps toward "aiding, assisting or making easier" Cristian's release and return -- similar to the remedy ordered by the judge in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
MORE: Appeals court sides with Venezuelan man seeking return to US from El Salvador
Judge Gallagher on Tuesday said she wants the government to provide, by May 27, a status report that includes Cristian's current physical location and custodial status; what steps, if any, defendants have taken to facilitate Cristian's return to the United States; and what additional steps defendants will take, and when, to facilitate Cristian's return.
This is the second time that Gallagher, a 2019 Trump appointee, has asked the government to provide this information; the previous time the government filed a motion asking Gallagher to vacate her order, which she denied. The government then appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of the order, which was denied on Monday.
In her April ruling, Gallagher determined that Cristian's removal to El Salvador was in breach of an existing settlement agreement, finalized in 2024, that protected migrants who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors from deportation until there was a final determination on their asylum claims.
The administration has argued -- unsuccessfully thus far -- that Cristian's removal under the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation was not a violation of the settlement agreement, and that Cristian is an admitted Tren de Aragua member, which he denies.
A Salvadoran soldier stands guard at the CECOT prison, in Tecoluca, El Salvador April 4, 2025.
Jose Cabezas/Reuters
Responding to Monday's ruling by the 4th Circuit, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement, "We strongly disagree with the Court's ruling. No error was made in this individual's return. This alien is a self-admitted Tren de Aragua gang member and illegal alien from Venezuela. Along with millions of other illegal aliens, he crossed our border illegally under the previous administration."
"The President and Secretary Noem will not allow a foreign terrorist organization to operate on American soil," McLaughlin said. "If the court forces his return, he will be removed again."
Related Topics
Judge orders government to report steps it's taken to facilitate Venezuelan man's return to US
A judge has ordered the Trump administration to report "the steps they have taken" to facilitate the return of a deported 20-year-old Venezuelan man to the U.S.
abcnews.go.com
