Senator Defends Constitutional Rights After El Salvador Visit to Meet Deported Maryland Resident
A Mission About Constitutional Principles, Not One Individual
Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland made headlines recently following his trip to El Salvador, but he wants Americans to understand exactly what his mission was about. Speaking on ABC News’ “This Week,” the Democratic senator was emphatic that his journey wasn’t about defending one particular man’s character, but rather about defending the foundational principles that protect every American. “I am not defending the man. I’m defending the rights of this man to due process,” Van Hollen explained to co-anchor Jonathan Karl. The senator emphasized that the Trump administration itself has acknowledged in court proceedings that the individual in question, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was wrongfully detained and wrongfully deported from the United States. For Van Hollen, this isn’t just about one person’s fate—it’s about protecting the rule of law for everyone. “If we take it away from him, we do jeopardize it for everybody else,” he warned, highlighting the dangerous precedent that could be set when constitutional protections are violated, regardless of who the victim might be.
The Troubling Case That Led to International Intervention
The case that brought Senator Van Hollen to El Salvador last week involves a Maryland resident whose story raises serious questions about immigration enforcement and judicial authority. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported in March to one of El Salvador’s most notorious facilities—the CECOT prison—despite a court order dating back to 2019 that explicitly prohibited his removal due to legitimate safety concerns. The Trump administration has alleged that Abrego Garcia has ties to the MS-13 gang, a claim that both his legal representatives and his family strongly dispute and categorically deny. The facts of Abrego Garcia’s life paint a very different picture: he fled El Salvador in 2011 to escape gang threats, married a U.S. citizen, and is the father of a five-year-old son who has autism. On March 12, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) apprehended him in Maryland, transported him to a detention facility in Texas, and then deported him—actions the administration would later characterize as an “administrative error.” Despite this admission, he remains under a final order of removal, creating a complex legal situation that challenges the relationship between executive action and judicial oversight.
An Unexpected Meeting Under Unusual Circumstances
Senator Van Hollen’s visit to El Salvador took some dramatic turns that highlight the politically sensitive nature of this case. Initially, the senator was denied access to the CECOT prison where Abrego Garcia was being held and was preparing to leave the country empty-handed. Then, unexpectedly, he received a phone call with a surprising proposition. “I think, at some point, the president of El Salvador realized it was looking really bad to have this person who had been absconded from the streets of Maryland in one of their prisons and not able to communicate,” Van Hollen explained. The Salvadoran authorities informed him that they would bring Abrego Garcia to the senator’s hotel, which is how the meeting eventually took place. During their conversation, Abrego Garcia shared the traumatic experience he had endured—from the initial apprehension to his time in CECOT, one of the region’s most feared detention facilities. What struck Van Hollen particularly was Abrego Garcia’s account of the arrest itself: his five-year-old son with autism had been in the car when U.S. agents stopped them, handcuffed his father, and took him away—a traumatic scene for any child to witness, especially one with special needs.
Allegations of Complicity and Violations of International Law
Senator Van Hollen didn’t mince words when discussing the role of El Salvador’s government in this affair. He directly criticized President Nayib Bukele, stating that his administration was “complicit in this illegal scheme with the Trump administration.” One particularly troubling aspect of the case, according to Van Hollen, was the complete communications blackout surrounding Abrego Garcia’s detention. “The family hadn’t heard from him. Nobody had any contact for weeks,” the senator revealed. This lack of communication, Van Hollen asserted, represents a violation of international law—prisoners have basic rights to contact with the outside world, and denying those rights crosses legal and ethical boundaries. The senator painted a disturbing picture of what Abrego Garcia experienced: “This is a guy who’s just abducted off the streets of Maryland, put in a couple airplanes, didn’t know he was going to El Salvador, and ends up in the most notorious prison.” Van Hollen also addressed the strange optics of his meeting with Abrego Garcia, revealing that Salvadoran authorities had attempted to stage the encounter by the hotel pool, apparently trying to create an impression that the deported man was in comfortable, perhaps even vacation-like, conditions. “They actually wanted to have the meeting by the hotel pool,” Van Hollen recounted. “You’re absolutely right that the Salvadoran authorities tried to deceive people. They tried to make it look like he was in paradise.”
Defending Due Process Against Partisan Attacks
The senator has faced criticism from Republicans who characterize his actions as defending a gang member, but Van Hollen forcefully rejected this framing. He emphasized a critical distinction that goes to the heart of constitutional democracy: “The idea that you can’t defend people’s rights under the Constitution and fight MS-13 and gang violence is a very dangerous idea. That’s the idea the president wants to put out. That’s why they’re spreading all these lies.” Van Hollen challenged the Trump administration to present their evidence in the proper venue—a court of law. “Here’s where they should put their facts: They should put it before the court. They should put up or shut up in court,” he stated bluntly. He pointed out that a district court judge in this case had specifically noted the absence of evidence, stating, “They put no evidence linking Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or to any other terrorist activity.” This lack of evidence is particularly significant given that the entire justification for bypassing the court order preventing his deportation rests on the alleged gang affiliation. For Van Hollen, the administration’s unwillingness or inability to present evidence in court while making public accusations represents exactly the kind of extrajudicial action that threatens everyone’s constitutional protections.
The Broader Implications for Presidential Power and Constitutional Rights
Looking beyond this individual case, Senator Van Hollen sees troubling implications for the balance of power in American government and the protection of rights for all people within U.S. jurisdiction. “This is a person who the United States courts have determined was illegally taken from the United States,” he emphasized. His concern centers on what happens when the executive branch simply disregards court orders—a scenario that strikes at the foundation of the separation of powers. Van Hollen’s mission, as he described it, was “to make sure that we observe the rule of law, the Constitution, due process, rights.” He characterized the unusual circumstances of his meeting with Abrego Garcia as evidence of the lengths that both President Bukele and President Trump will go “to try to deceive people about what this case is all about.” What the case is really about, in Van Hollen’s view, is “simply complying with the Supreme Court order to facilitate his return and make sure he gets due process.” The senator concluded with a powerful statement about the indivisibility of constitutional rights: “I would say that anyone that’s not prepared to defend the constitutional rights of one man when they threaten the constitutional rights of all doesn’t deserve to lead.” This principle—that constitutional protections must apply equally to everyone, regardless of their popularity or the accusations against them—represents one of the fundamental values distinguishing democracies from authoritarian systems. Whether one agrees with Van Hollen’s assessment of this particular case or not, his central argument raises questions that every American should consider: What happens to all of our rights when courts can be ignored? And who decides which people deserve constitutional protection and which don’t?
