Trump pushes Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation to West Africa

(MARYLAND, UNITED STATES) Trump administration officials are still pushing to remove Kilmar Abrego Garcia from the United States 🇺🇸 to a West African destination, even as multiple governments have refused to take him and federal judges in Maryland question the legality of the government’s approach. As of October 11, 2025, court records and hearing testimony show the government has tried to send him to Ghana and Eswatini, and most recently to Uganda, despite no personal ties to those countries and explicit rejection from at least one of them. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who lives in Maryland with his U.S. citizen wife and children, remains in the country while litigation continues.

Abrego Garcia’s case turned after he was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March 2025, despite holding “withholding of removal,” a protection that bars deportation to a specific country where a person faces persecution or torture. That protection does not give a green card, but it does stop removal to the barred country and allows a person to live and work in the United States.

According to federal filings, his forced return to El Salvador led to immediate jailing without trial at CECOT, where he reportedly suffered severe mistreatment. After repeated court orders, U.S. officials brought him back, yet then opened fresh removal efforts targeting third countries he had never visited.

Escalating legal clash in Maryland federal court

The legal fight has grown sharper in recent months. Federal Judge Paula Xinis, reviewing the March removal to El Salvador, called the deportation “wholly lawless” and said the government’s conduct “shocks the conscience,” noting that officials had not presented evidence of criminal activity or gang membership in court.

Her rulings forced the government to reverse its most drastic step and return Abrego Garcia to his family in Maryland. He has not been convicted of any crime in the United States or El Salvador, court records state.

Even after his return, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) actions continued to zigzag:

• DHS at one point notified Abrego Garcia that it would deport him to Ghana, only to later tell his attorneys the notice was “premature” and to disregard it.
• In separate court testimony, a U.S. official acknowledged that Eswatini had not agreed to receive him.
• Ghana’s foreign minister publicly stated that Ghana is not accepting him and has communicated this “directly and unambiguously” to U.S. authorities.
• The government later served notice of planned removal to Uganda and arrested Abrego Garcia at an ICE check‑in, a move his lawyers say led to new emergency motions before the court.

The government also once tried to fold Costa Rica into the dispute by pressing Abrego Garcia to accept transfer there as part of a plea arrangement. He declined, and his attorneys say DHS responded with more punitive actions.

Each time, lawyers returned to court seeking relief, arguing the government may not remove someone to a third country without that country’s agreement and without a lawful basis to target that country in the first place.

Third-country deportation push faces diplomatic roadblocks

At the center of the impasse is a simple barrier: third countries must agree to receive a person before removal can happen.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, attempts to send people to nations with which they have no ties almost always depend on the receiving government’s written consent and cooperation. In Abrego Garcia’s case, that cooperation has not materialized:

• Ghana has said no.
• Eswatini hasn’t agreed.
• Uganda’s position remains unclear.
• No West African government has stepped forward to welcome him.

For Abrego Garcia and his family in Maryland, the human cost is clear. He was a teenager when he fled threats in El Salvador and later won withholding of removal in 2019. That status allowed him to work and raise his children in the U.S.

The March 2025 deportation to El Salvador, which the court later condemned, disrupted their lives and left lasting trauma. The family continues to attend hearings while trying to keep daily routines steady for their children.

The government’s legal stance highlights a broader question: when a person is protected from deportation to a specific country—here, El Salvador—what options remain for removal? In theory, DHS can seek a third country that agrees to accept the person. But in practice, that path is narrow:

• It requires diplomatic coordination and written consent from the receiving country.
• It requires a lawful process and compliance with court orders.
• If a country refuses, the flight cannot depart.
• If a judge finds the government’s steps unlawful, officials must pull back.

Key developments to date

1. March 2025: Wrongful deportation to El Salvador despite withholding of removal; subsequent jailing at CECOT reported.
2. Court orders: Federal rulings require the U.S. to return Abrego Garcia; Judge Xinis rebukes the government’s actions.
3. Third-country efforts: Notices target Ghana and Uganda; testimony notes no agreement from Eswatini; Ghana publicly refuses.
4. Current posture: Abrego Garcia remains in Maryland with his family while lawsuits continue; no receiving country has agreed.

The Trump administration’s push reflects a harder line on removals, yet the tools available are limited by international practice and court oversight. Without consent from a destination country, deportation cannot proceed. That reality has shaped high-profile cases before, and it shapes this one now.

What “withholding of removal” means

For readers seeking a plain explanation: withholding of removal is a form of protection ordered by an immigration judge when a person proves it’s more likely than not they would be persecuted on protected grounds (such as race, religion, or political opinion) or tortured if returned to a specific country.

• Unlike asylum, it does not lead to a green card or travel documents.
• It bars removal to the dangerous country named in the order.
• The U.S. government may still try to remove the person elsewhere, but only if that country agrees and the process follows the law.

For an official overview of protections related to asylum and fear-based claims, see the U.S. government’s page on Asylum (USCIS): https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum.

What happens next

What happens next will likely unfold on two tracks:

1. Courtroom
   • Judge Xinis and possibly higher courts will assess whether new removal notices and arrests comply with prior orders and federal law.
2. Diplomacy
   • U.S. officials may continue searching for a country willing to accept Abrego Garcia, though public rejections make that path harder.

Meanwhile, advocates point to the lack of any criminal conviction and say the case shows how easily a person with protection can still face surprise detention, a rushed plane ticket, and an uncertain future.

President Trump’s officials have not indicated they will stop trying. But the recent pattern—notice issued, country declines, court intervenes—suggests the practical barriers are growing.

The only certainty now is that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not being sent to El Salvador, because withholding of removal blocks that outcome, and no other country has agreed to take him.

His lawyers are preparing for more hearings; DHS has not announced any confirmed removal plan; and his children continue to ask if their father will be home for dinner after the next ICE appointment.

In immigration, process matters as much as policy. Here, judges, foreign ministers, and DHS officers are all steering a single case with high stakes. The record shows a wrongful deportation, a return under court order, and a string of attempted removals to places with no consent and no connection. Until a lawful path appears, or a court sets firm limits, the standoff over Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation is set to continue.