Deportation twist: Trump wants to send Abrego Garcia to a third country—before his U.S. trial even ends

Federal prosecutors told a Maryland court on June 26, 2025, that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national currently facing human smuggling charges, may be deported to a “third country” if he is released on bond—despite having not yet stood trial. The announcement was made during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, amid growing legal efforts by Garcia’s attorneys to block his removal and ensure his return to Maryland, where he had previously lived with his wife and child.

During the court session, Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Guynn confirmed that if the court in Tennessee grants Garcia bail, federal immigration authorities intend to take him into custody and begin removal proceedings. When pressed by Judge Xinis to clarify whether the destination would be El Salvador or another country, Guynn said, “To a third country, is my understanding.” He did not specify which country that would be or provide a timeline. “There are no imminent plans to remove him,” Guynn said in response to further questions.

This statement came a day after Garcia appeared before a federal judge in Tennessee, where he faces allegations of transporting undocumented migrants while residing in Maryland. The Tennessee court ordered both parties to submit legal briefs by Friday addressing whether the federal government has the legal authority to deport a criminal defendant before trial concludes.

Could the Trump administration deport Abrego Garcia before his smuggling trial concludes in Tennessee?

The Department of Justice maintains that Garcia will be prosecuted in the United States before any removal occurs. A spokesperson stated that “he will face the full force of the American justice system,” and emphasized that deportation, if pursued, would follow the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

The judge in Tennessee, Magistrate Barbara Holmes, has paused his release pending legal guidance on whether immigration enforcement may supersede ongoing criminal proceedings. Her concern echoes fears raised by civil rights advocates that Garcia—previously deported in violation of court orders—could be removed again before justice is served.

The legal team representing Garcia filed an emergency motion Thursday requesting that he be returned to Maryland and not deported or transferred outside the state. Their filing stresses that deportation would impair his ability to coordinate a legal defense and participate meaningfully in his trial, especially given the geographical and logistical challenges of out-of-state or out-of-country relocation.

What precedent exists for deporting migrants to third countries instead of their home nations?

The Justice Department’s strategy to remove Garcia to a third country instead of El Salvador reflects a recent shift in federal deportation policy. On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld executive authority to deport migrants to countries other than their own, without requiring detailed pre-removal reviews.

That ruling provides the Trump administration with legal cover for new bilateral or multilateral arrangements enabling so-called “safe third country” removals. These have included agreements with nations such as Rwanda and Panama, although critics have questioned the human rights records of such destinations.

In Garcia’s case, details regarding the intended third country remain undisclosed. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson declined to name any nation under consideration, citing operational security.

How are Abrego Garcia’s lawyers trying to prevent his removal from the United States?

Garcia’s legal team has argued that deporting him—especially to a destination yet to be named—would violate both his constitutional rights and existing federal court protections. In 2019, a court explicitly barred his deportation to El Salvador on grounds that he faced persecution there. That order was ignored in March 2025, when he was deported and briefly detained in El Salvador’s high-security CECOT prison before being returned to the U.S. under court pressure.

The new emergency motion filed in Maryland builds on that prior ruling. His attorneys argue that deportation to any other country, without judicial review, poses similar risks and violates due process.

What political and public sentiment has emerged around Abrego Garcia’s case?

The case has become a flashpoint in national immigration and constitutional debates. Institutional sentiment has been sharply divided. While the Trump administration has defended the legality of its actions under new Supreme Court guidance, immigration advocates and legal scholars have expressed concern about executive overreach.

State and local leaders have also weighed in. Maryland officials, including members of Congress, have condemned Garcia’s earlier deportation to El Salvador. Senator Chris Van Hollen attempted to visit him in the CECOT prison in April, only to be rebuffed by Salvadoran authorities. His treatment sparked outrage among civil society groups and drew headlines across national and international press.

In Tennessee, demonstrators gathered near the courthouse during his bail hearing in support of allowing him to remain in the United States while his trial proceeds. Activist organizations have described the potential for third-country deportation as “a backdoor form of extraordinary rendition.”

What happened when Garcia was previously deported to El Salvador, and how did he return?

In March 2025, Garcia was deported to El Salvador’s controversial CECOT mega-prison, despite a standing court order issued in 2019 barring his removal to that country. That deportation was swiftly challenged by his lawyers and escalated to the federal judiciary.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that Garcia’s removal had been illegal. Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision compelling the Trump administration to repatriate him to the U.S. for trial. In doing so, the court cited serious violations of constitutional protections, particularly the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

Following that ruling, Garcia was returned earlier this month and transferred to Tennessee to face charges connected to an alleged human smuggling network.

How does this case reflect the broader shifts in Trump-era immigration enforcement?

The Trump administration has emphasized expedited removals and revived several immigration policies from the president’s first term. These include efforts to expand asylum restrictions, increase detention capacity, and introduce third-country deportations—even for individuals with pending court cases.

The case of Abrego Garcia exemplifies these broader shifts. Immigration authorities now appear willing to test the limits of executive power, potentially removing individuals before judicial proceedings conclude. Though federal judges have pushed back, administration officials continue to press their authority under the guise of national security and immigration control.

What are the next steps in the legal and immigration proceedings?

Two parallel legal processes are now unfolding. In Tennessee, federal court proceedings are moving forward, with parties scheduled to submit briefs on the deportation issue. A decision on Garcia’s release is expected in the coming days.

In Maryland, Judge Xinis will consider the emergency motion seeking to block any potential deportation or out-of-state transfer. Her ruling may set a precedent for whether courts can restrain immigration enforcement during active criminal trials.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is reportedly preparing to file removal paperwork. If Garcia is released on bond, he would immediately be transferred to ICE custody.

Any attempt to deport Garcia before trial may trigger another round of emergency legal filings, with potential escalation to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals once again.

Why the attempt to deport Abrego Garcia before trial raises major due process and constitutional concerns

The effort to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a third country—without a finalized criminal verdict or public designation of where—raises fundamental questions about the rule of law. If immigration enforcement can override court orders and remove individuals before due process concludes, it weakens judicial credibility and tilts constitutional balance toward unchecked executive action.

This case will likely define legal standards for future deportations involving criminal defendants and will test the reach of the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on third-country removals.