El Salvador

Latin America’s political landscape has seen sweeping shifts in recent years. On one hand, a so-called “second Pink Tide” has returned left-of-centre governments to power in key countries – Lula in Brazil, Petro in Colombia, and the broad left in Mexico – inspiring hopes of renewed democracy and social reform. On the other hand, strongman leaders like El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele (a populist outsider not usually labelled “leftist”) and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro (an entrenched Chavista) have consolidated control in ways critics call authoritarian. The question looms: are these developments evidence that the region is sliding back toward autocracy, cloaked in progressive rhetoric? Or are they legitimate shifts reflecting popular will and necessary reform? Recent trends in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador, and Venezuela, show serious democratic backsliding, populist leadership styles, and the uses (and abuses) of leftist language to consolidate power rather than give it back to the people.

Brazil: Lula’s Left Turn and the Security State

Brazil’s democracy was violently tested in early 2023 when Jair Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidential palace. The crisis – and the swift legal response by institutions – helped vindicate Brazil’s checks and balances. When former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) won the 2022 election, many Brazilians breathed a sigh of relief as they felt and agreed that a second Bolsonaro term would have propelled Brazil further into autocracy, whereas Lula’s coalition blocked that outcome. Polls showed Brazilians rallying to defend democracy after the Jan. 8 insurrection, and Lula himself has repeatedly proclaimed Brazil a “champion of democracy” on the world stage. Under Lula, Brazil has indeed reversed some of Bolsonaro’s more extreme policies, especially on the environment and social welfare, and the Supreme Court remains independent and active.

At the same time, Brazil still grapples with brutal crime and controversial security policies. In October 2025 a massive police raid in Rio de Janeiro’s favelas – involving roughly 2,500 officers – killed at least 119 people (115 suspected traffickers and 4 officers). Human rights groups denounced the operation as a massacre, reporting that many of the victims were killed execution-style. President Lula’s justice minister stated that Lula was horrified by the death toll and had not authorised the raid, which took place without federal approval. Rights investigators noted that in 2024, approximately 700 people were killed in police actions in Rio—nearly two per day, even before this incident. The episode underscored the persistence of militarised and largely unaccountable security practices, rooted in decades of mano dura policing. Lula’s administration, however, has publicly condemned the use of excessive force and pledged to pursue meaningful reforms in public security policy.

In short, Brazil’s picture is mixed. Bolsonarismo (Bolsonaro’s movement) still holds sway in many state capitals, and violence remains high. But Lula’s presidency so far shows more emphasis on rebuilding institutions and fighting inequality than on authoritarian control. Brazil’s democracy has shown resilience: after the coup attempt, support for democracy actually peaked among the public. Lula himself has publicly affirmed free speech and criticised right-wing attacks, reversing some of Bolsonaro’s polarising rhetoric. Thus, we can view Brazil as democratic, albeit fragile. The major ongoing concerns are police brutality and crime – which are treated as security policy issues more than political power grabs by the president.

However, although Lula’s third term has been marked by a renewed emphasis on social justice, labour rights, and environmental protection, it has also been coupled with a discourse that often frames politics as a moral battle between the people and entrenched elites. This populist tone has reinforced his image as a defender of ordinary Brazilians while simultaneously deepening political polarisation and straining institutional checks and balances. His leadership style tends to concentrate moral and political authority around his persona, blending pragmatic governance with an appeal to popular sentiment. Even though Lula continues to operate within democratic frameworks, this personalisation of power highlights the persistent tension between populist mobilisation and institutional restraint in Brazil’s fragile democracy.

Mexico: Welfare Reforms and Power Consolidation

Mexico’s case is more worrisome. Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO, 2018–2024), a self-declared leftist populist, implemented a dramatic concentration of power. By 2024 his ruling Morena party controlled the presidency, both houses of Congress, and most state governorships. His government pushed through constitutional amendments that bolstered the executive and weakened independent checks. By the end of his term, his party had achieved full control of the executive branch, both chambers of Congress, and most subnational states, and it overhauled the judiciary and strengthened the military through reforms aimed at executive aggrandisement and weakening checks and balances. In plain terms, AMLO used his majority to rewrite rules in his favour.

AMLO’s populist rhetoric was central to this process. He constantly framed his campaign as a fight against corrupt “elites” and the “old” political order. Slogans like “Por el bien de todos, primero los pobres” (For the good of all, first the poor) became rallying cries.  On the surface, that populist welfare agenda – pensions for seniors, higher minimum wage, social programmes – delivered what could be perceived as real results. Poverty fell sharply: by 2024 over 13.4 million fewer Mexicans lived below the poverty line, a historic 26% drop. These benefits helped AMLO maintain high approval from his base. Yet a closer look reveals a more complex picture. Independent analyses show that much of this reduction is linked to temporary cash transfers and post-pandemic economic recovery rather than structural improvements in wages, education, or healthcare. Inequality and informality remain deeply entrenched, and millions continue to rely on precarious, low-paid work. Moreover, Mexico’s social spending has not been matched by investments in institutional capacity or transparency, raising concerns that short-term welfare gains may mask longer-term fragility. In this sense,  López Obrador’s populist social model contrasted starkly with its narrative of transformation: it has lifted incomes in the immediate term but done little to strengthen the foundations of sustainable, equitable development.

Also the same rhetoric that promised to empower the poor also justified undermining institutions. AMLO’s blend of social policy with authoritarian tactics created a downward trend in freedoms. He openly clashed with autonomous agencies and critical media, called judges “traitors,” and even moved to punish an independent Supreme Court justice. AMLO began implementing his unique brand of populist governance, combining a redistributive fiscal policy with democratic backsliding and power consolidation. In 2024’s Freedom Index, Mexico plummeted from “mostly free” to “low freedom,” reflecting accelerated erosion of press freedom, judicial independence, and checks on the executive.

For example, AMLO mused about revoking autonomy of the election commission (INE) and packed federal courts with loyalists. He oversaw a lawsuit that temporarily replaced the anti-monopoly commissioner (though this was later reversed). Controversial judicial reforms were rammed through Congress with MORENA’s (National Regeneration Movement) supermajority. In the name of fighting corruption, AMLO and his party sidestepped democratic norms. By the time he left office, many prominent dissidents had been labelled enemies of the people, and civil-society watchdogs reported increasing self-censorship under fear of government reprisals.

Legitimate reforms vs. power grabs: Of course, AMLO’s administration did achieve significant social gains. His policies tripled the minimum wage and expanded social pensions for the elderly and students. From the left’s point of view, these are overdue redresses of inequality after decades of neoliberal policy. Nevertheless, one can also say that AMLO pursued these at the expense of Mexico’s democracy.

AMLO’s successor, Claudia Sheinbaum has largely extended the populist and centralising model of her predecessor. Her government has expanded the same welfare policies – including pensions for the elderly, youth scholarships, and agricultural subsidies – which continue to secure her strong approval ratings. At the same time, she has pursued a more nationalist economic strategy, favouring the state over private or renewable investment, a move seen by many as ideologically driven rather than economically sound.

Her administration’s approach to governance has reinforced concerns about democratic backsliding. Within months of taking power, her party used its congressional majority to pass a sweeping judicial reform allowing for the election of nearly all judges, a measure widely interpreted as undermining judicial independence. She also oversaw the dismantling of Mexico’s autonomous transparency and regulatory agencies, institutions originally created to prevent executive overreach after decades of one-party rule. Her rhetoric, while measured compared to López Obrador’s, has nonetheless targeted independent electoral and judicial authorities as acting against the popular will. Violence against journalists and judicial pressure on the press have continued under her watch, suggesting a continuity of the authoritarian tendencies embedded in her predecessor’s style of governance. In effect, Sheinbaum has presented herself as the guardian of López Obrador’s so-called “Fourth Transformation”, but her actions increasingly blur the line between social reform and the consolidation of political control.

Meanwhile, MORENA, the ruling party, has evolved into a hegemonic political force that increasingly mirrors the old Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Having consolidated control over the presidency, Congress, and most governorships, MORENA now dominates the national political landscape with little meaningful opposition. Its supermajority has enabled constitutional changes that weaken autonomous regulators and reconfigure the judiciary in its favour. Efforts to overhaul the electoral system – including proposals to curtail proportional representation and cut funding for opposition parties – further tilt the playing field towards one-party dominance. The party’s control of state resources and vast social programmes has also revived the clientelism and political patronage once characteristic of PRI rule. Many regional elites and former PRI figures have joined MORENA’s ranks, expanding its reach through local alliances and personal networks. This combination of electoral dominance, state control, and populist legitimacy has left few institutional counterweights to its power. In practice, Mexico’s political system is sliding back towards the PRI-style arrangement it once fought to overcome: a single dominant party using popular mandates and social welfare to entrench its hold over the state while constraining the mechanisms of democratic accountability.

Colombia: Peace Agenda and Institutional Pushback

Colombia’s new president, Gustavo Petro (in office since August 2022), is the country’s first-ever leftist head of state. He campaigned on ending historical violence and inequality, reaching a definitive peace with guerrilla groups, and “transforming” Colombian society. To that end, Petro has pursued ambitious reforms – agrarian, labor, climate, and constitutional – some of which have hit roadblocks in Congress and the courts.

One flashpoint has been his call for a constitutional rewrite. Petro announced he would ask voters (via the 2026 legislative elections ballot) whether to convene a national constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. He argues that traditional institutions (Congress and the courts) repeatedly blocked key reforms – for instance, an environmental tax and a gender law were struck down as unconstitutional – and that only a direct mandate could implement his agenda. In his own words, he has framed the move as carrying out “the people’s mandate for peace and justice”, implicitly casting political opposition as elitist roadblocks. Arguably, under Colombia’s 1991 Constitution, a referendum on reform first requires legislation from Congress; the president alone cannot unilaterally change the constitution. Indeed, Petro’s coalition lost its majority in the Senate after the 2024 elections, and even has a minority in the House. That means he cannot force through a referendum law on his own.

Petro’s gambit is a stress test of Colombia’s institutions. Although Petro is popular with part of the electorate, and the checks and balances in the country have been holding– Congress and the Constitutional Court can still block overreach. Petro’s approval ratings hover around 37%, giving savvy opponents incentive to organise rallies or boycotts if he tries an end-run around Congress. Moreover, Colombia’s Constitutional Court has so far signalled it will strictly enforce procedural requirements before any reform, and it would likely strike down any effort to allow immediate presidential reelection (which the constitution currently bans). In fact, observers have flagged concern that Petro might push to permit his own re-election, raising alarm among civil society and international partners.

Thus far Petro has not succeeded in weakening institutions as Bolsonaro did in Brazil or Maduro in Venezuela. To the contrary, Colombia’s court and electoral tribunal have acted independently, even prosecuting members of Petro’s coalition for campaign irregularities. The country’s strong judicial branch remains a bulwark. That said, the tone of politics has become extremely polarised and personal. After a recent assassination of a presidential candidate (son of former President Uribe), the campaign trail saw shrill accusations: Petro’s supporters often label their opponents “far-right extremists,” while his critics call him a “communist” or worse. This combustible rhetoric – on all sides – could jeopardise stability.

Colombia today embodies both promise and peril. Petro has introduced progressive initiatives (such as a new climate ministry and child allowances) that appeal to many, but he also openly questions the role of old elites and considers dramatic institutional change. His proposals have not yet realised an authoritarian shift, but they have tested the separation of powers. The situation is dynamic: if Petro tries to override constraints, Colombia’s existing democratic guardrails (courts, Congress, watchdogs) will likely react strongly. The key question will be whether Colombia can channel legitimate popular demands through its institutions without them buckling under pressure.

El Salvador: The Bukele Model of “Punitive Populism”

El Salvador stands apart. President Nayib Bukele (in power since 2019, re-elected 2024) defies easy ideological labelling– he was not from the traditional leftist bloc – but his governance style has strong authoritarian features. His rise was fuelled by a promise to crush the country’s notorious gangs, and indeed El Salvador’s homicide rate plummeted under his rule. Bukele has remade a nation that was once the world’s murder capital. According to  figures, over 81,000 alleged gang members have been jailed since 2022 – about one in 57 Salvadorans – and Bukele enjoys sky-high approval ratings (around 90%) from citizens tired of crime. These results have been touted as proof that his “iron fist” strategy of mass arrests and harsh prison sentences (the world’s largest incarceration rate) has worked. In this sense, Bukele’s firm grip on security is seen by many supporters as a legitimate reform: a state that delivers safety, even at the cost of civil liberties.

However, the democratic trade-offs have been extreme. Since 2022, Bukele has ruled largely by decree under a perpetual state of emergency, suspending key constitutional rights (due process, privacy, freedom of assembly). Criminal suspects – including minors – are arrested en masse without warrants and often held in overcrowded prisons. The president has openly interfered in the judiciary: his pro-government legislators dismissed all members of the Supreme Court and Attorney General’s office in 2021–22, replacing them with loyalists. This allowed Bukele to evade the constitutional prohibition on immediate presidential re-election and secure a second term in 2024. Even ordinary political opposition has been effectively pulverised, party leaders disqualified, judges threatened, and dissenters harassed or driven into exile.

Human-rights groups accuse Bukele’s security forces of torture and disappearances of innocent people swept up in the dragnet. A 2024 Latinobarómetro survey found that 61% of Salvadorans fear negative consequences for speaking out against the regime – despite the fact that Bukele’s formal approval remains high. Many critics now call him a “social-media-savvy strongman” or “millennial caudillo”, suggesting he leads by personal charisma and social-media influence.

On the other hand, his defenders argue Bukele has simply done what past governments could not: restore order and invest in infrastructure (like child-care and tech initiatives) that were ignored for years. Indeed, El Salvador under Bukele has attracted foreign investment (notably in Bitcoin ventures) and even hosted international events like Miss Universe, as if to signal normalcy. But  Bukele has built his legitimacy on the back of extraordinary measures that sideline democracy. Bukele’s popularity may export a brand of ‘punitive populism’ that leads other heads of state to restrict constitutional rights, and when (not if) public opinion turns, the country may find itself with no peaceful outlet for change. In other words, El Salvador’s example shows how quickly a welfare-and-security-oriented leader can morph into an authoritarian ruler once key institutions are neutered.

Venezuela: Consolidated Authoritarianism

Venezuela is the clearest example of democracy overtaken by authoritarianism. Over the past quarter-century, Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro have steadily dismantled democratic institutions, replacing them with a one-party state. Today Venezuela is widely recognised as a full electoral dictatorship, not an anomaly but a case study in how leftist populism can yield outright autocracy. The 2024 presidential election was the latest illustration: overwhelming evidence suggests the opposition actually won by a landslide, yet the regime hid the true vote counts, declared Maduro the winner with a suspicious 51% share, and reinstalled him for a third term. Venezuela’s leaders purposefully steered Venezuela toward authoritarianism. It is now a fully consolidated electoral dictatorship

Since then, Maduro’s government has stamped out virtually all resistance. Leading opposition figures have been harassed, jailed, or exiled. Opposition candidate María Corina Machado – who reportedly won twice as many votes as Maduro was banned by the Supreme Court from even running. New laws passed in late 2024 further chill dissent: for example, the “Simón Bolívar” sanctions law criminalises criticism of the state, and an “Anti-NGO” law gives authorities broad power to shut down civil-society groups if they receive foreign funds. All justice in Venezuela is now rubber-stamped by Maduro’s hand-picked judges.

Any pretense of pluralism has vanished. State media and pro-government mobs drown out or beat up remaining critics. Despite dire economic collapse and mass exodus (millions of Venezuelans have fled hunger and repression), Maduro governs with an iron grip. In short, Venezuela today is an example of ideological rhetoric (Chavismo, Bolivarian Revolution) entirely subsumed by power. It also serves as a caution: the veneer of elections and redistributive slogans can sometimes hide total dictatorship. (In Venezuela’s case, the “leftist” regime never even bothered to disguise its authoritarian turn.)

Legitimacy, Rhetoric, and Checks

Throughout these cases, a common theme emerges: populist rhetoric vs institutional reality. Leftist or progressive leaders often claim to champion the poor and marginalised – a message that resonates in societies scarred by inequality. Yet in practice, that rhetoric sometimes becomes a justification for concentrating power. AMLO spoke of a “fourth transformation” of Mexico to overcome the “old regime,” and applied that mission to reshape institutions. Petro invokes “the will of the people” to override what he calls elite obstruction. Lula’s Brazil has been less about overthrowing elites and more about undoing his predecessor’s policies. And Bukele promises safety so absolute that he deems dissent a luxury Salvadorans cannot afford.

Of course, leftist governments do enact genuine reforms. The region has seen expansions of social programmes, pensions, healthcare, and education in many countries. In a sense, voters rewarded candidates like Lula, Petro, and AMLO precisely because they promised change and delivered temporary benefits (scholarships, pensions, workers’ pay raises, etc.). But even well-meaning reforms can backfire if the manner of governing ignores constitutional limits.

Where was the line crossed from policy to autocracy? The answer varies. In Venezuela, it was crossed long ago. In El Salvador, it was in 2020 when the Supreme Court was neutered. In Mexico and Colombia, it might yet be crossed if current trends continue. Notably, independent institutions have played the decisive role. Brazil’s judiciary and congress checked Bolsonaro and remain intact under Lula; Colombia’s still-revolutionary courts have so far blocked Petro’s more radical ideas;  under Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s courts remain constrained by the constitutional limits that formally prevent presidential re-election, yet her administration’s actions have significantly weakened judicial independence. By politicising judicial appointments and curbing the autonomy of oversight bodies, her government has consolidated influence over the very institutions meant to act as checks on executive authority. In practice, Mexico’s judiciary is now more vulnerable to political pressure than at any time since the end of PRI dominance, reflecting a growing concentration of power within the presidency and the ruling party. In contrast, Venezuela’s courts have no independence at all, and El Salvador’s were replaced wholesale.

This suggests that Latin America has not uniformly fallen back into classic authoritarianism under “leftist” governments. Instead, populist leaders of varying ideologies have tested democratic boundaries, and outcomes differ by country. Where institutions remained strong, they provided a buffer. Where institutions were undermined, democracy withered.

The Future of Democracy in Latin America

So what does the future hold? After a brief blip of improvement, democracy metrics in Latin America appear to be declining again. In 2023, a composite index actually rose slightly, driven by gains in Colombia (Free status by Freedom House) and Brazil. But by 2024 the region was “re-autocratising”, with rule-of-law slipping in Mexico and Peru, and older warning signs re-emerging across the continent.

Key factors will influence the coming years. On one hand, many Latin Americans remain hungry for security, equity, and an end to corruption – needs that populist leaders address. If such leaders deliver results (as Bukele did on crime), public tolerance for illiberal methods may persist. On the other hand, the region has a relatively robust civil society, and voters in countries like Brazil and Colombia have shown willingness to hold leaders accountable.

Balance is crucial. In well-functioning democracies, major changes do not require emergency decrees or friendly courts; they require compromise and open debate. The examples of Mexico and El Salvador show how quickly democratic norms can erode when populist leaders wield their mandate without restraint.

Ultimately, Latin America’s record is not hopeless, but neither is it fully reassuring. The early 2020s have demonstrated that both left-wing and right-wing populisms can strain democracy. Are we returning to authoritarianism under a leftist facade? – has no single answer. In countries like Venezuela, the answer is emphatically yes. In others, it is a warning under construction: Mexico and El Salvador caution us, Colombia is at a crossroads, and Brazil’s experience suggests that institutions can still provide meaningful checks on executive power, but their resilience is not guaranteed. The recent police raid in Rio de Janeiro, serves as a stark test for Lula’s commitment to reforming Brazil’s militarised public-security apparatus. How his government responds to this and similar incidents will be a critical measure of whether Brazil’s democratic institutions can withstand pressure from both public opinion and entrenched security structures, or whether longstanding legacies of unchecked police power will continue to erode accountability.

For the future of the region, the lesson is that rhetoric alone cannot safeguard democracy. Even popular leaders must respect independent judiciaries, free press, and electoral integrity. If those pillars are allowed to crumble, Latin America’s democratic gains will fade. The coming years will test whether each country’s citizens insist on true democratic practice or allow the allure of strong leadership to override constitutional limits.

BALTIMORE — The U.S. government plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia and could do so as early as Oct. 31, according to a Friday court filing.

The Salvadoran national’s case has become a magnet for opposition to President Trump’s immigration crackdown since he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, in violation of a settlement agreement.

He was returned to the U.S. in June after the U.S. Supreme Court said the administration had to work to bring him back. Since he cannot be re-deported to El Salvador, the U.S. government has been seeking to deport him to various African countries.

A federal judge in Maryland had previously barred his immediate deportation. Abrego Garcia’s lawsuit there claims the Trump administration is illegally using the deportation process to punish him for its embarrassment over his mistaken deportation.

A Friday court filing from the Department of Homeland Security says that “Liberia is a thriving democracy and one of the United States’s closest partners on the African continent.” Its national language is English, its constitution “provides robust protections for human rights,” and Liberia is “committed to the humane treatment of refugees,” the filing asserts. It concludes that Abrego Garcia could be deported as soon as Friday.

The court filing assessment is in contrast to a U.S. State Department report last year that detailed a human rights record in Liberia including extrajudicial killings, torture and serious restrictions on press freedom.

“After failed attempts with Uganda, Eswatini, and Ghana, ICE now seeks to deport our client, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to Liberia, a country with which he has no connection, thousands of miles from his family and home in Maryland,” a statement from attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg reads. “Costa Rica stands ready to accept him as a refugee, a viable and lawful option. Yet the government has chosen a course calculated to inflict maximum hardship. These actions are punitive, cruel, and unconstitutional.”

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and child and has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager, but in 2019 an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where he faces a “well-founded fear” of violence from a gang that targeted his family, according to court filings. In a separate action in immigration court, Abrego Garcia has applied for asylum in the United States.

Additionally, Abrego Garcia is facing criminal charges in federal court in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the prosecution is vindictive.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker living legally in Maryland when he was wrongly deported to his home country, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown and mass deportation agenda.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

That statement by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was indicted May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him back from a prison in El Salvador. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes. The government has provided no clear evidence of gang affiliation, and Abrego Garcia denies the allegation.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador — in a notorious lockup with a documented history of human rights abuses — he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

Attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a Friday letter that they intend to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the African nation of Eswatini after he expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda.

The letter from ICE to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys was earlier reported by Fox News. It states that his fear of persecution or torture in Uganda is “hard to take seriously, especially given that you have claimed (through your attorneys) that you fear persecution or torture in at least 22 different countries. … Nonetheless, we hereby notify you that your new country of removal is Eswatini.”

Human rights groups have documented violations and abuses in Uganda — as well as in Eswatini, a tiny African kingdom formerly known as Swaziland.

Eswatini’s government spokesperson told the Associated Press on Saturday that it had received no communication regarding Abrego Garcia’s transfer there.

The Salvadoran man lived in Maryland for more than a decade before he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. That set off a series of contentious court battles that have turned his case into a test of the limits of President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies.

Although Abrego Garcia immigrated to the U.S. illegally around 2011 as a teenager, he has an American wife and child. A 2019 immigration court order barred his deportation to his native El Salvador, finding he had a credible fear of threats from gangs there. He was deported anyway in March — in what a government attorney said was an administrative error — and held in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT.

Facing a court order, the Trump administration returned him to the U.S. in June only to charge him with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Though that court case is ongoing, ICE now seeks to deport him again. Abrego Garcia, who denies the charges, is requesting asylum in the United States.

He was denied asylum in 2019 because his request came more than a year after he arrived in the U.S., his attorney Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg has said. Since he was deported and has now reentered the U.S., the attorney said, he is now eligible for asylum.

“If Mr. Abrego Garcia is allowed a fair trial in immigration court, there’s no way he’s not going to prevail on his claim,” he said in an emailed statement.

As part of his asylum claim, Abrego Garcia expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda and “nearly two dozen” other countries, according to an ICE court filing in opposition to reopening his asylum case. That Thursday filing also states that if the case is reopened, the 2019 order barring his deportation to El Salvador would become void and the government would pursue his removal to that country.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia ’s request for asylum in the United States is a prudent legal strategy, experts say, because it gives his lawyers better options for fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to deport him.

But it’s also a gamble. Depending on how the courts rule, Abrego Garcia could end up back inside the notorious El Salvador prison where he says he was beaten and psychologically tortured.

“It’s a strategic move,” Memphis-based immigration attorney Andrew Rankin said of the asylum request. “And it can certainly backfire. But it’s something I would do as well if I were representing him.”

Abrego Garcia, 30, became a focus of President Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was wrongfully deported to his native country in March. The administration is trying to deport him again.

Here are some things to know about his case:

‘You can’t win every case’

The administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador because U.S. officials said he was an MS-13 gang member. It’s an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he wasn’t charged.

His removal to El Salvador violated a U.S. immigration judge’s ruling from 2019 that barred his deportation there. The judge found that Abrego Garcia faced credible threats from a local gang that had extorted from and terrorized his family.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court order, the administration returned him to the United States in June. But it was only to face human smuggling charges, which his lawyers have called preposterous and vindictive.

The administration has said it now intends to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and the main architect of Trump’s immigration policies, told reporters Friday that Garcia has “said he doesn’t want to go back to El Salvador.”

Miller said the administration is “honoring that request by providing him with an alternate place to live.”

In an effort to fight back, Abrego Garcia has notified the U.S. government that he fears being sent to Uganda, which has documented human rights abuses. He said he believes he could be persecuted, tortured or sent from there to El Salvador.

But even if he thwarts deportation to Uganda in immigration court, he probably will face attempts to remove him to another country and then another until the administration succeeds, Rankin said.

“By the law of averages, you can’t win every case,” the lawyer said. “The government has sunk its teeth far into what they’re doing with Kilmar and immigration in general, that it wouldn’t make any sense for them to just give up the fight.”

Taking a risk

Asylum, however, could end the fight.

The request would place the focus solely back on his native El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia has previously shown that he has a credible fear of gang persecution.

But he’s taking a risk by reopening his 2019 immigration case, Rankin said. If he loses the bid for asylum, an immigration judge could remove his protection from being returned to his native country.

That could place him back in the infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECO, in El Salvador. It’s where, Abrego Garcia alleges in a lawsuit, he suffered severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Abrego Garcia had applied for asylum in 2019. The immigration judge denied his request because it came more than a year after Abrego Garcia had arrived in the U.S. He had fled to Maryland without documentation around 2011.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers will probably argue that he has the right to request asylum now because he has been in the U.S. for less than a year after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Rankin said.

If approved, asylum could provide him with a green card and a path to citizenship.

‘Not going to let this go’

Abrego Garcia’s asylum petition would go through the U.S. immigration court system, which is not part of the judiciary but an arm of the Department of Justice and under the Trump administration’s authority.

That’s where the risk comes in.

Abrego Garcia has a team of lawyers fighting for him, unlike many people who are facing deportation. And a federal judge is monitoring his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland to ensure he can exercise his constitutional rights to fight against deportation in immigration court.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis cannot rule on whether he gets asylum or is deported, but she said she will ensure his right to due process. His team says he is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, including to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

“Even if he does manage to win asylum, the government is going to appeal,” Rankin said. “They’re not going to let this go. Why would they after they’ve invested months and months into this one guy?”

Rankin noted that if Abrego Garcia remains within the jurisdiction of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that court’s laws would govern his asylum claim. He said that court has been generally positive toward asylum claims and likely would give Abrego Garcia a “fair shake.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Luena Rodriguez-Feo Vileira in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has come to encapsulate much of President Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda, wants to seek asylum in the United States, his lawyers told a federal judge Wednesday.

Abrego Garcia, 30, was detained Monday by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement in Baltimore after leaving a Tennessee jail on Friday. The Trump administration said it intends to deport him to the African country of Uganda.

Administration officials have said he’s part of the dangerous MS-13 gang, an allegation Abrego Garcia denies.

The Salvadoran national’s lawyers are fighting the deportation efforts in court, arguing he has the right to express fear of persecution and torture in Uganda. Abrego Garcia has also told immigration authorities he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica if he must be removed from the U.S.

A request for asylum in 2019

A U.S. immigration judge denied his request for asylum in 2019 because he applied more than a year after he had fled to the U.S. He left El Salvador at the age of 16, around 2011, to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen and was living in Maryland.

Although he was denied asylum, the immigration judge did issue an order shielding Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he faced credible threats of violence from a gang there that had terrorized him and his family. He was granted a form of protection known as “withholding of removal,” which prohibits him from being sent to El Salvador but allows his deportation to another country.

Following the 2019 ruling, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision and continued to live with his American wife and children in Maryland. He checked in with ICE each year, received a federal work permit and was working as a sheet metal apprentice earlier this year, his lawyers have said.

But in March, the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia to a notorious El Salvador prison, alleging he was a member of MS-13.

The allegation stems from a day in 2019 when Abrego Garcia sought work as a day laborer at a Home Depot in Maryland. Authorities had been told by a confidential informant that Abrego Garcia and other men could be identified as members of MS-13 because of their clothing and tattoos. He was detained by police, but Abrego Garcia was never charged — and has repeatedly denied the allegation. He was turned over to ICE and that’s when he applied for asylum for the first time.

Wrongful deportation and return

The Trump administration’s deportation of Abrego Garcia in March violated the immigration judge’s 2019 order barring his removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia’s wife sued to bring him back. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June, where he was charged with human smuggling, a federal offense.

Abrego Garcia is accused of taking money to transport people who were in the country illegally. He has pleaded not guilty and asked the judge to dismiss the case, saying it was filed to punish him for challenging his deportation.

The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee. There were nine passengers in the SUV and Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in cash on him. While officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling, he was allowed to drive away with only a warning.

A Homeland Security agent testified that he didn’t begin investigating until this April, when the government was facing mounting pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. The trial is set for January.

A federal judge in Tennessee released Abrego Garcia from jail on Friday after ruling that he was not a flight risk or a danger. The Trump administration moved to deport Abrego Garcia again on Monday, alleging he is a danger.

Abrego Garcia then stated his intent to reopen his immigration case in Maryland and to seek asylum again, his lawyers said Wednesday. Asylum, as defined under U.S. law, provides a green card and a path to citizenship. Abrego Garcia can still challenge his deportation to Uganda, or any other country, on grounds that it is unsafe.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say sending him to Uganda would be punishment for successfully fighting his deportation to El Salvador, refusing to plead guilty to the smuggling charges and for seeking release from jail in Tennessee.

Judge keeps Abrego Garcia in the U.S., for now

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit to ensure that he can exercise his constitutionally protected right to fight deportation. He is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, his lawyers say.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, who is overseeing the lawsuit, has ruled that the U.S. government cannot remove Abrego Garcia from the country as the lawsuit plays out.

Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign said the government disagrees with the court’s order not to remove him while the lawsuit is pending but that it will comply.

Xinis will not rule on whether Abrego Garcia receives asylum or is deported, but will determine whether he can exercise his right to contest deportation. His asylum case will be heard by a U.S. immigration judge, who is employed by the Department of Justice under the authority of the Trump administration.

The nation’s immigration courts have become a key focus of Trump’s hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The president has fired more than 50 immigration judges since he returned to the White House in January.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have said he’ll be able to appeal immigration court rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va. AP writer Elliot Spagat contributed to this report.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who’s at the center of an ongoing immigration feud with the Trump administration, faces the possibility of deportation to Uganda, just a day after being released from a Tennessee jail.

Court documents Saturday showed President Trump’s administration plans to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda after he turned down an offer to be sent to Costa Rica if he pleaded guilty to human smuggling charges.

His case has attracted attention amid Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges, which the Maryland resident denies.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia’s lead attorney in his lawsuit against the Trump administration, said in a statement Saturday that the government is trying to use the immigration system to punish his client by “attempting to send him halfway across the world, to a country with documented human rights abuses and where he does not even speak the language.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorney’s court filings show the administration requested he appear at an immigration facility in Baltimore on Monday and could be deported again.

In a statement Friday at his release, Abrego Garcia said he saw his family for the first time in more than five months.

“We are steps closer to justice, but justice has not been fully served,” he added.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denounced the decision to free Abrego Garcia, stating that the administration will not stop fighting until he’s out of the U.S.

The Trump administration casts him as an MS-13 gang member and immigrant smuggler.

Abrego Garcia and his attorneys reject those claims. They portray him as a family man and construction worker who was arbitrarily deported and vindictively charged.

As his story takes yet another turn, here’s what to know:

The Costa Rica-Uganda offer

The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday and included a requirement that he remain in jail, according to a brief filed in Tennessee, where the criminal case was brought. After Abrego Garcia left jail Friday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement told his attorneys he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities Monday.

Later Friday, the government told Abrego Garcia he has until first thing Monday to accept a plea in exchange for deportation to Costa Rica, or else that offer will be off the table, his defense attorneys wrote.

They declined to say whether he is still considering the offer.

Filed along with the court brief was a letter from the Costa Rican government stating that Abrego Garcia would be welcomed to that country as a legal immigrant and wouldn’t face the possibility of detention.

Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin responded to the brief with a statement saying, “A federal grand jury has charged Abrego Garcia with serious federal crimes … underscoring the clear danger this defendant presents to the community. This defendant can plead guilty and accept responsibility or stand trial before a jury. Either way, we will hold Abrego Garcia accountable and protect the American people.”

The Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he should report to immigration authorities on Monday in Baltimore to face deportation.

Uganda has agreed to a deal to accept certain migrants being deported from the United States.

‘Well-founded fear’ of returning to El Salvador

Abrego Garcia, 30, grew up in El Salvador and fled at 16 because a local gang extorted from and terrorized his family, court records state. He traveled to Maryland, where his brother lives as a U.S. citizen, but was not authorized to stay.

Abrego Garcia found work in construction and met his future wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura. In 2018, he moved in with her and her two children after she became pregnant with their child.

In March 2019, Abrego Garcia went to a Home Depot seeking work as a laborer when he was detained by local police, court records state. He was suspected of being in MS-13, based on tattoos and clothing.

A criminal informant told police Abrego Garcia was in MS-13, court records state, but police did not charge him and turned him over to ICE.

A U.S. immigration judge denied Abrego Garcia’s subsequent asylum claim because more than a year had passed since his arrival. But the judge granted him protection from being deported to El Salvador, determining he had a “well-founded fear” of gang persecution there, court records state.

Abrego Garcia was released and placed under federal supervision. He received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his lawyers said.

‘Audacity to fight back’

In February, the Trump administration designated MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization. In March, it deported Abrego Garcia to a prison in El Salvador, violating the U.S. immigration judge’s 2019 order.

Abrego Garcia later claimed in court documents that he was beaten and psychologically tortured while held at the Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele denied the allegations.

The Trump administration described its violation of the immigration judge’s 2019 order as an administrative error. Trump and other officials reiterated claims that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13.

Vasquez Sura filed a lawsuit to bring her husband back. The Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June after a Supreme Court order. But it brought human smuggling charges against him.

The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving with nine passengers. Tennessee police suspected human smuggling, but allowed him to drive on and didn’t charge him.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty.

His lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case based on “vindictive and selective prosecution.”

Deportation fears realized

U.S. Magistrate Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled in June that Abrego Garcia has a right to be released from jail while he awaits trial.

But Abrego Garcia remained in a Tennessee jail at his attorneys’ request for about 11 weeks over fears that ICE would immediately try to deport him.

Thomas Giles, an assistant director for ICE, testified in July that Abrego Garcia would be detained as soon as he’s freed.

U.S. officials argued Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally and because an immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, just not to his native El Salvador.

Judge provides some protections

In response to concerns Abrego Garcia would be deported without due process, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis prohibited ICE from immediately detaining him upon release in Tennessee.

Xinis, overseeing the lawsuit in Maryland, ordered restrictions on ICE in late July. She required any removal proceedings begin in Baltimore.

Xinis also ordered that ICE provide three business days’ notice if it intends to initiate removal proceedings.

The Trump administration has “done little to assure the Court that, absent intervention, Abrego Garcia’s due process rights will be protected,” Xinis wrote.

Electronic monitoring and home detention

Soon after Xinis’ order, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked the federal judge in Tennessee to release him.

Holmes, the U.S. magistrate in Nashville, released him Friday, requiring Abrego Garcia to stay with his brother in Maryland and be subjected to electronic monitoring and home detention.

Finley and Catalini write for the Associated Press. AP writer Travis Loller in Nashville contributed to this report.

NASHVILLE — U.S. immigration officials said they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, according to a Saturday court filing.

The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday, after it was clear that the Salvadoran national would probably be released from a Tennessee jail the next day. Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family. Later that day, the Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities Monday.

Abrego Garcia’s case became a high-profile story in President Trump’s immigration crackdown after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.

He has pleaded not guilty and has asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation to El Salvador. The Saturday filing came as a supplement to that motion to dismiss, stating that the threat to deport him to Uganda is more proof that the prosecution is vindictive.

“The government immediately responded to Mr. Abrego’s release with outrage,” the filing reads. “Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”

Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defense.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

The constitutional amendment also extends presidential terms from five years to six and scraps election run-offs.

El Salvador’s ruling party has passed a bill to overhaul how elections are run in the Central American nation, opening the door for President Nayib Bukele to serve another term.

On Thursday, 57 Congress members voted in favour and three voted against a constitutional amendment that will allow indefinite presidential re-election, extend terms from five years to six and scrap election run-offs.

Bukele won a second term last year despite a clear prohibition in the country’s constitution. El Salvador’s top court, filled with Bukele-backed judges, ruled in 2021 that it was the leader’s human right to run again.

After his re-election last year, Bukele told reporters he “didn’t think a constitutional reform would be necessary”, but evaded questions on whether he would try to run for a third term.

With Thursday’s constitutional reforms, Bukele, who enjoys enormous support at home for his heavy-handed campaign against criminal gangs, will be able to run again.

The overhaul will also shorten the president’s current term to synchronise elections in 2027, as presidential, legislative and municipal elections are currently staggered.

“Thank you for making history, fellow deputies,” said Ernesto Castro, the president of the Legislative Assembly from the ruling New Ideas party, after counting the votes on Thursday.

‘Democracy has died’

Speaking during the parliamentary session, opposition lawmaker Marcela Villatoro from the Republican National Alliance (ARENA) criticised the proposal being brought to parliament as the country begins a week of summer holidays and said “democracy has died in El Salvador”.

Opposition politician Claudia Ortiz from the Vamos party slammed the reform as “an abuse of power and a caricature of democracy”.

The constitutional reform has also drawn sharp criticism from international rights groups.

“The reforms lead to a total imbalance in the democracy that no longer exists,” Miguel Montenegro, director of NGO the Human Rights Commission of El Salvador, told the AFP news agency.

“The day before vacation, without debate, without informing the public, in a single legislative vote, they changed the political system to allow the president to perpetuate himself in power indefinitely, and we continue to follow the well-travelled path of autocrats,” Noah Bullock, executive director of rights group Cristosal, told the Reuters news agency.

The group recently left El Salvador, declaring itself in exile due to Bukele’s drive to consolidate his grip on power and crack down on critics and humanitarian organisations.

LOBATERA, Venezuela — Carlos Uzcátegui tightly hugged his sobbing wife and stepdaughter on Wednesday as the morning fog in western Venezuela lifted. The family’s first embrace in more than a year finally convinced him that his nightmare inside a prison in El Salvador was over.

Uzcátegui was among the migrants being reunited with loved ones after four months in prison in El Salvador, where the U.S. government transferred them in one of its boldest moves to crack down on immigration.

“Every day, we asked God for the blessing of freeing us from there so that we could be here with family, with my loved ones,” Uzcátegui, 33, said. “Every day, I woke up looking at the bars, wishing I wasn’t there.”

“They beat us, they kicked us. I even have quite a few bruises on my stomach,” he added later showing a mildly bruised left abdomen.

The migrants, some of whom characterized the prison as “hell,” were freed Friday in a prisoner swap between the U.S. and Venezuelan governments, but the latter sequestered them upon arrival to their country.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and other officials have said many of the immigrants were physically and psychologically tortured during their detention in El Salvador, airing on state television videos of some of the men describing the alleged abuse, including rape, severe beatings and pellet-gun wounds. The narratives are reminiscent of the abuses that Maduro’s government has long been accused of committing against its real or perceived, jailed opponents.

As the men reached their homes, they and their relatives shared deeply emotional moments in which sad tears and happy tears rolled down their cheeks at the same time.

Uzcátegui’s wife, Gabriela Mora, 30, held onto their home’s fence and sobbed as she saw the military vehicle carrying him approach after a 30-plus-hour bus ride to their mining community nestled in Venezuela’s Andean mountains. She had set up gifts and decorations in their living room, including a star-shaped metallic blue balloon with a “Happy Father’s Day” greeting that his stepdaughter had saved since the June holiday.

‘We met a lot of innocent people’

The 252 men ended in El Salvador on March 16 after the administration of President Trump agreed to pay $6 million to the Central American nation to house them in a mega-prison, where human rights groups have documented hundreds of deaths and cases of torture. Trump accused the men of belonging to the violent Tren de Aragua street gang, which originated in Venezuela.

The administration did not provide evidence to back up the accusation. However, several recently deported migrants have said U.S. authorities wrongly judged their tattoos and used them as an excuse to deport them.

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello on Friday said only seven of the men had pending cases in Venezuela, adding that all the deportees would undergo medical tests and background checks before they could go home.

Arturo Suárez, whose reggaeton songs surfaced on social media after he was sent to El Salvador, arrived at his family’s working-class home in the capital, Caracas, on Tuesday. His sister hugged him after he exited a vehicle of Venezuela’s intelligence service.

“It is hell. We met a lot of innocent people,” Suárez told reporters, referring to the prison he was held in. “To all those who mistreated us, to all those who negotiated with our lives and our freedom, I have one thing to say, and scripture says it well: Vengeance and justice is mine, and you are going to give an account to God the Father.”

The Associated Press could not verify the abuse allegations that Suárez and other migrants narrated in the videos aired by state media.

Atty. Gen. Tarek William Saab on Monday said he had opened an investigation against El Salvador President Nayib Bukele based on the deportees’ allegations. Bukele’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Appointment to seek asylum

The men left El Salvador as part of a prisoner exchange with the U.S., which received 10 citizens and permanent residents whom Maduro’s government had jailed over accusations of plotting to destabilize Venezuela.

Mora said her husband migrated after the coal mine he had long worked at halved his pay and their street food shop went out of business in 2023. Uzcátegui left Lobatera in March 2024 with an acquaintance’s promise to help him find a construction job in Orlando.

On his way north, Uzcátegui crossed the punishing Darien Gap that separates Colombia and Panama, and by mid-April he had reached Mexico City. There, he worked at a public market’s seafood stall until early December, when he was finally granted an appointment through a U.S. government smartphone app to seek asylum at a border crossing.

But Uzcátegui never walked free in the U.S., where authorities regarded his tattoos with suspicion, said Mora. He was sent to a detention center in Texas until he and other Venezuelans were put on the airplanes that landed in El Salvador. Still, she said she does not regret supporting her husband’s decision to migrate.

“It’s the country’s situation that forces one to make these decisions,” she said. “If [economic] conditions here were favorable … it wouldn’t have been necessary for him to leave to be able to fix the house or to provide my daughter with a better education.”

Cano writes for the Associated Press.

An international deal has been struck that has allowed Venezuelans deported from the United States and imprisoned in El Salvador to return to their home country, in exchange for the release of American citizens and political prisoners held in Venezuela.

On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that 10 Americans had been released as part of the deal.

“Thanks to @POTUS’s [the president of the United States’] leadership, ten Americans who were detained in Venezuela are on their way to freedom,” Rubio wrote on social media.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele also celebrated the deal, saying that all of the Venezuelan deportees detained in his country have been “handed over”.

“We carried out this exchange in return for a considerable number of Venezuelan political prisoners, people that regime had kept in its prisons for years, as well as all the American citizens it was holding as hostages,” Bukele, a US ally, wrote in a statement on social media.

“These individuals are now en route to El Salvador, where they will make a brief stop before continuing their journey home.”

Bukele has previously indicated he would be open to a detainee swap to release political prisoners in Venezuela. He and US President Donald Trump have long been critics of their Venezuelan counterpart, Nicolas Maduro, a socialist who has led Venezuela since 2013.

“This operation is the result of months of negotiations with a tyrannical regime that had long refused to release one of its most valuable bargaining chips: its hostages,” Bukele added.

The Venezuelan government confirmed it had received 252 citizens deported from the US and held in El Salvador.

In addition, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello told the media that seven children separated from their parents during deportations had also been sent from the US to Venezuela.

Friday’s deal is the latest example of the complex, international negotiations underpinning President Donald Trump’s push for mass deportation in the US.

Such a deal has long been rumoured between the three countries.

But the arrangement raises questions about how Trump’s mass deportation push might be used as leverage for other foreign policy priorities. It has also reignited scrutiny about the treatment of individuals deported from the US to third-party countries they have no relation to.

A controversial deportation

Venezuela has protested the deportation of its citizens from the US to El Salvador, where more than 200 people were sent to a maximum-security prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) in March.

To facilitate that transfer, President Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — a wartime law only used three times prior — to allow for the swift removal of foreign nationals.

The US leader argued that undocumented migration into the US constituted an “invasion” of criminals from outside countries.

His use of that law, however, has faced ongoing legal challenges about its constitutionality.

Critics also have pointed out that El Salvador has faced criticism for alleged human rights abuses in its prisons, including beatings, torture and sleep deprivation.

The CECOT prison is part of Bukele’s own efforts at mass incarceration. It opened in 2023 with space to hold up to 40,000 people.

Trump argued that deporting the 200-plus Venezuelans was an urgent matter because they belonged to gangs like Tren de Aragua. Bukele echoed that accusation on Friday, saying that all the Venezuelan deportees were “accused of being part of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua”.

But critics point out that some of the men had no criminal record whatsoever.

Lawyers representing some of the deported Venezuelans have since issued complaints alleging that their clients were targeted based on their clothing choices or tattoos, which US immigration officials then used to falsely tie them to gangs.

Third-party deportations

The Trump administration has also maintained that deportations to third-party countries like El Salvador are necessary for immigrants whose home countries will not accept them.

Venezuela has, in the past, refused to accept deportees from the US. Maduro and Trump have had a notoriously rocky relationship. In 2020, Trump even placed a $15m bounty for information that could lead to Maduro’s arrest.

But rather than return to the “maximum pressure” campaign that defined his first term as president, Trump has instead sought negotiations with the Venezuelan government during his second term.

In response, the Maduro government has signalled that it is willing to accept Venezuelan deportees from the US.

For example, it hosted US special envoy Richard Grenell in Caracas in late January, a trip that resulted in the release of six Americans held in Venezuela. The Maduro administration also released a detained US Air Force veteran in May, following another meeting with Grenell.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that Grenell’s mission was to ensure “all US detainees in Venezuela are returned home”. It is unclear how many remain in the country.

The US government, however, continues to deny the legitimacy of Maduro’s presidency. Maduro’s contested election to a third term in 2024 — marred by allegations of fraud — has further weakened his standing on the world stage.

Controversies over mass deportation

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has contended with controversies of its own. Last week, The New York Times reported that the Trump White House had “botched” the agreement to free Americans in Venezuela, after Grenell and Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed rival deals.

The Times said that Rubio had proposed a trade: American prisoners for the Venezuelans held in El Salvador. But Grenell had offered different terms that would allow Venezuela to continue its trade relationship with the oil giant Chevron, a major boon for its beleaguered economy.

The result was reportedly confusion and uncertainty.

Furthermore, the Trump administration has faced scrutiny at home for its apparent unwillingness to repatriate immigrants who may have been unjustly deported.

In June, District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to ensure the Venezuelan men held in El Salvador received due process in the US. In his decision, Boasberg pointed out that their swift removal in March prevented them from contesting both their deportations and the allegations that they were gang members.

That court order, however, has been put on hold by a federal appeals court in Washington.

Friday’s deal also raises questions about previous Trump administration claims that it was unable to release the deported men from the CECOT prison. Trump officials have long argued that, while in El Salvador, the deportees lie beyond the reach of the US government.

El Salvador’s President Bukele has also claimed he had no power to allow the men’s return. In an Oval Office appearance in April, Bukele spoke to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man briefly held in CECOT after he was wrongfully deported in March.

“The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Bukele told a reporter.

Media reports indicate that El Salvador received $6m in exchange for holding people deported from the US.

The rights group Cristosal says it has evacuated staff from El Salvador amid pressure from President Nayib Bukele.

The El Salvador human rights and anti-corruption watchdog Cristosal says it has relocated its operations outside the country, as the government of President Nayib Bukele intensifies its crackdown on dissenting voices.

Cristosal said on Thursday that it has suspended work in El Salvador and relocated its staff out of the country, where the group plans to continue its work in exile.

“When it became clear that the government was prepared to persecute us criminally and that there is no possibility of defence or impartial trial, that makes it unviable to take those risks anymore,” Noah Bullock, executive director of Cristosal, told the news agency Reuters, speaking from Guatemala.

The Bukele government has stepped up its targeting of organisations and figures that scrutinise the government’s record on issues such as corruption and security, threatening rights groups and independent media with what critics say are fabricated legal challenges.

Ruth Lopez, a prominent anti-corruption and justice advocate with Cristosal, was arrested on corruption charges in May and remains in detention. Her arrest has been denounced by organisations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations.

Bukele also announced a new law in May requiring non-governmental organisations that receive support from outside the country to register with the government and pay additional taxes.

Cristosal has operated in El Salvador for 25 years and has become a target of ire for Bukele with investigations into government corruption and reports on the human toll of El Salvador’s campaign of mass arrests and suspension of key civil liberties in the name of combating gang activity.

“Under a permanent state of exception and near-total control of all institutions, El Salvador has ceased to be a state of rights,” the group said in a statement on Thursday. “Expressing an opinion or demanding basic rights today can land you in jail.”

The Bukele government declared a “state of exception” in March 2022, granting the government and security forces exceptional powers and suspending key civil liberties. The government’s push has substantially reduced the influence of powerful gangs that had previously smothered life in Salvadoran cities with exploitation and violence.

Those successes have won Bukele widespread popularity, but come at a steep cost: scores of people swept into prisons without charge, held in abysmal conditions and with no means of contesting their detention. Bukele himself has also faced accusations of coordinating behind the scenes with powerful gang leaders.

While the government has boasted that violent crime has fallen to record lows and the gangs have been smashed, it has continuously renewed the exceptional powers under the state of emergency, which dissidents say are being used to target and harass human rights advocates and critics of the government.

In April 2023, the investigative news outlet El Faro also stated that it would relocate its administrative and legal operations outside the country over fears of legal harassment and surveillance, while its reporters would continue to work in El Salvador.

WASHINGTON — The government of El Salvador has acknowledged to United Nations investigators that the Trump administration maintains control of the Venezuelan men who were deported from the U.S. to a notorious Salvadoran prison, contradicting public statements by officials in both countries.

The revelation was contained in court filings Monday by lawyers for more than 100 migrants who are seeking to challenge their deportations to El Salvador’s mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT.

The case is among several challenging President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

“In this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities,” Salvadoran officials wrote in response to queries from the unit of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The U.N. group has been looking into the fate of the men who were sent to El Salvador from the United States in mid-March, even after a U.S. judge had ordered the planes that were carrying them to be turned around.

The Trump administration has argued that it is powerless to return the men, noting that they are beyond the reach of U.S. courts and no longer have access to due process rights or other U.S. constitutional guarantees.

But lawyers for the migrants said the U.N. report shows otherwise.

“El Salvador has confirmed what we and everyone else understood: it is the United States that controls what happens to the Venezuelans languishing at CECOT. Remarkably the U.S. government didn’t provide this information to us or the court,” American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Lee Gelerent said in an email.

Skye Perryman, chief executive and president of Democracy Forward, said the documents show “that the administration has not been honest with the court or the American people.” The ACLU and Democracy Forward are both representing the migrants.

Administration officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The administration in March agreed to pay $6 million for El Salvador to house 300 migrants. The deal sparked immediate controversy when Trump invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to quickly remove men it has accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

In a related case, the administration mistakenly sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the same prison, despite a judge’s order prohibiting the Maryland man from being sent to El Salvador.

The administration initially resisted court orders to bring him back to the U.S., saying he was no longer in American custody. Eventually, Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., where he now faces criminal charges of human smuggling while legal battles continue.

Last month, a coalition of immigrant rights groups sued to invalidate the prison deal with El Salvador, arguing that the arrangement to move migrant detainees outside the reach of U.S. courts violates the Constitution.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in New York on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a man who was deported to El Salvador roughly 30 minutes after the court suspended an order to remove him from the U.S.

The ruling in Jordin Alexander Melgar-Salmeron’s case marks at least the fourth time this year that President Trump’s administration has been ordered to facilitate the return of somebody mistakenly deported.

The government said “a confluence of administrative errors” led to Melgar-Salmeron’s deportation on May 8, according to the decision by a three-judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel said administration officials must facilitate his return to the U.S. “as soon as possible.” The judges gave them a week to identify his current physical location and custodial status and to specify what steps they will take to facilitate his return.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation in March became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown, was returned from El Salvador this month to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee.

In April, a Trump-nominated judge in Maryland ordered his administration to facilitate the return of a man who was deported to El Salvador in March despite having a pending asylum application. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled that the government violated a 2019 settlement agreement when it deported the 20-year-old man, a Venezuelan native identified only as Cristian in court papers.

And in May, another judge ordered the administration to facilitate the return of a Guatemalan man whom it deported to Mexico despite his fears of being harmed there. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy found that the removal of the man, who is gay, likely “lacked any semblance of due process.”

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

NASHVILLE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia will remain in jail for at least a few more days while attorneys in the federal smuggling case against him spar over whether lawyers have the ability to prevent Abrego Garcia’s deportation if he is released to await trial.

The Salvadoran national whose mistaken deportation became a tinderbox in the fight over President Trump’s immigration policies has been in jail since he was returned to the U.S. on June 7, facing two counts of human smuggling.

Although a federal judge has ruled that he has a right to be released and even set specific conditions for his release, his attorneys expressed concern that it would lead to immediate detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and deportation.

On Sunday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes ruled that Abrego Garcia does not have to remain in jail before that trial. On Wednesday afternoon, she will set his conditions of his release and allow him to go, according to her order. However, his defense attorneys and prosecutors have said they expect him to be taken into custody by ICE as soon as he is released on the criminal charges.

Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, said during a news conference before Wednesday’s scheduled court hearing that it’s been 106 days since he “was abducted by the Trump administration and separated from our family.” She noted that he has missed family birthdays, graduations and Father’s Day, while “today he misses our wedding anniversary.”

Vasquez Sura said their love, their faith in God and an abundance of community support have helped them persevere.

“Kilmar should never have been taken away from us,” she said. “This fight has been the hardest thing in my life.”

Federal prosecutors are appealing Holmes’ release order. Among other things, they expressed concern in a motion filed Sunday that Abrego Garcia could be deported before he faces trial. Holmes has said that she won’t step between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security — it is up to them to decide whether they want to deport Abrego Garcia or prosecute him.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken deportation in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Those charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. At his detention hearing, Homeland Security special agent Peter Joseph testified that he did not begin investigating Abrego Garcia until April this year.

Holmes said in her Sunday ruling that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community. He has lived for more than a decade in Maryland, where he and his American wife are raising three children.

However, Holmes referred to her ruling as “little more than an academic exercise,” noting that ICE plans to detain him. It is less clear what will happen after that. Although Abrego Garcia can’t be deported to El Salvador — where an immigration judge found he faces a credible threat from gangs — he is still deportable to a third country as long as that country agrees to not send him to El Salvador.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

NASHVILLE — A federal judge in Tennessee on Sunday denied the U.S. government’s motion to keep Kilmar Abrego Garcia in detention before his trial on human smuggling charges and ordered his release.

But Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador has become a high-profile case in President Trump’s immigration crackdown, is not expected to go free because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will probably take him into custody and possibly try to deport him.

In denying the Trump administration’s motion Sunday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the conditions of his release.

The U.S. government has already filed a motion to appeal the judge’s decision and is asking her to stay her impending release order.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken deportation in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador. That hearing was the first chance the Maryland construction worker had in a U.S. courtroom to answer the Trump administration’s allegations.

The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Although officers suspected possible smuggling, he was allowed to go with only a warning.

A federal indictment accuses Abrego Garcia of smuggling throughout the U.S. hundreds of people living in the country illegally, including children and members of the violent MS-13 gang. He has denied the charges.

The investigation was launched weeks after the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return from El Salvador amid mounting public pressure.

Holmes acknowledged in her ruling Sunday that determining whether Abrego Garcia should be released is “little more than an academic exercise” because ICE will probably detain him. But the judge wrote that the government failed to prove that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk, that he posed a danger to the community or that he would interfere with proceedings if released.

“Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Abrego’s release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community,” the judge wrote.

The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Rob McGuire, argued on June 13 that the likely attempt by ICE to deport him was one reason to keep him in jail.

The judge suggested then that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security could work out between themselves whether the government’s priority is to try him on the criminal charges or deport him. No date has been set for the trial.

A 2019 immigration judge’s order prevents Abrego Garcia from being deported to his native El Salvador because he faces a credible threat from gangs there, according to Will Allensworth, an assistant federal public defender representing him.

The government could deport him to a third country, but immigration officials would first be required to show that that country was willing to keep him and not deport him back to El Salvador, Allensworth said.

At the detention hearing, McGuire said cooperating witnesses have accused Abrego Garcia of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims. Abrego Garcia also denies those accusations, and although he is not charged with such crimes, McGuire said they showed him to be a dangerous person who should remain in jail pretrial.

Most people in ICE custody who are facing criminal charges are not kept in the U.S. for trial but deported, according to Ohio State University law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández. The government would not need a conviction to deport Abrego Garcia because he came to the U.S. illegally.

However an immigration judge rules, the decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, García Hernández said. And the board’s ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court.

Loller and Finley write for the Associated Press and reported from Nashville and Norfolk, Va., respectively.

After his mistaken deportation to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia faces US charges of transporting undocumented migrants.

A man the Donald Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador has been brought back to the United States, where authorities say he will face criminal charges.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, a Salvadoran immigrant who had lived nearly half his life in Maryland before he was deported in March, faces charges of transporting undocumented migrants inside the US, according to recently unsealed court records.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that Abrego Garcia was returned to the US to “face justice”.

The indictment against him was filed on May 21, more than two months after he was deported in spite of a court order barring his removal.

The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, which suspected Abrego Garcia of human trafficking but ultimately issued only a warning for an expired driver’s license, according to a Department of Homeland Security report.

Bondi, speaking at a news conference, said a grand jury had “found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring”.

She said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return Abrego Garcia to the US after American officials presented his government with an arrest warrant.

Abrego Garcia had been sent to El Salvador as part of a Trump scheme to move undocumented migrants it accuses of being gang members, to prison in the Central American country without due process.

Bukele said in a social media post that his government works with the Trump administration and “of course” would not refuse a request to return “a gang member” to the US.

Deportation ‘a separate legal matter’

Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington, DC, said Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted.

But “that does not deal with the ongoing matter of whether or not he should be deported”, she added. “That’s a separate legal matter.”

Abrego Garcia will have the chance to enter a plea in court and contest the charges at trial. If he is convicted, he would be deported to El Salvador after serving his sentence, Bondi said.

In a statement, Abrego Garcia’s lawyer, Andrew Rossman, said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process.

“Today’s action proves what we’ve known all along – that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,” said Rossman, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel.

Abrego Garcia’s deportation defied an immigration judge’s 2019 order granting him protection from being sent back to El Salvador, where it found he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if returned, court records show.

Trump critics pointed to the erroneous deportation as an example of the excesses of the Republican president’s aggressive approach to stepping up deportations.

Officials countered by alleging that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. His lawyers have denied that he was a gang member and said he had not been convicted of any crime.

Abrego Garcia’s case has become a flash point for escalating tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, which has ruled against a number of Trump’s policies.

The US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his “warrantless arrest”.

US District Judge Paula Xinis also opened a probe into what, if anything, the Trump administration did to secure his return, after his lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported from the US to El Salvador, has been returned to the US, where he will face charges including “alien smuggling.” US Attorney General Pam Bondi says the charges were returned by a Tennessee grand jury last month.