Attorneys for Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia say federal officials tried to coerce a guilty plea by threatening deportation to Uganda if he refused a deal tied to removal to Costa Rica. In a motion filed on August 23, 2025, the defense alleged that the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used deportation destinations as pressure in ongoing human-smuggling charges. He was ordered to report to ICE in Baltimore on Monday, August 25, 2025, after declining the plea.
The filing caps a turbulent week for Abrego Garcia. He was released from criminal custody in Tennessee and transferred to Maryland on Friday, August 22, 2025. His lawyers say that after he turned down a plea offer that would have sent him to Costa Rica, ICE told them the government could instead pursue deportation to Uganda—a country where he has no citizenship or ties. DHS gave him until Monday morning to accept the Costa Rica deal.
The defense says the tactic forces an impossible choice: admit guilt to secure a removal path he knows, or face deportation to Uganda, where, they argue, his safety and liberty would be at risk. They contend the government’s move violates due process—the basic rule that the government must act fairly and not use threats to push someone to give up rights in a criminal case. DHS and ICE did not immediately comment in response to the latest filing.
What the record shows about Costa Rica and the deadline
On the record, the government of Costa Rica told the U.S. embassy it would only accept Abrego Garcia after he completes any U.S. criminal sentence. According to the defense, that created a short window:
- If he agreed to a plea by Monday, August 25, 2025, he would be removed to Costa Rica under Costa Rica’s terms.
- If he refused, officials warned the offer would be pulled and he could face deportation to Uganda.
The deadline was firm: Monday, August 25, 2025.
The defense says this tactic turns plea bargaining into a forced choice between a known removal path and an uncertain, potentially dangerous third-country removal.
Political reaction and public statements
The case drew sharp political reaction. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem criticized the judge’s decision to release Abrego Garcia from custody pending trial, calling him an “MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser, and child predator,” and saying the order marked a “new low.” His attorneys have denied that public statements should decide bail or plea terms, arguing that the court—not public officials—will weigh the evidence at trial.
Background: prior wrongful deportation and current charges
This dispute follows a misstep in March 2025, when Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported and then returned to the United States to face the criminal case. Counsel says that error shows how immigration powers can already intrude on criminal proceedings in ways that harm a defendant’s rights.
He now awaits a human-smuggling trial scheduled for January 27, 2027, while managing a narrow set of choices about where he may be sent if the case ends in conviction or a plea.
Legal and scholarly perspectives: coercion and third-country removal
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the escalating fight over deportation destinations shows how immigration enforcement can shape criminal proceedings for non-citizens. The notable twist here is the use of a third-country removal—deportation to a country where the person has no status—as leverage after a plea rejection.
Legal scholars note:
- Immigration law permits removal to countries other than a person’s home in limited situations, but
- Using such removal specifically to drive a plea raises serious fairness and due-process questions.
Lawyers allege coercion through third-country removal
The defense motion argues federal officials tried to coerce a guilty plea by using deportation leverage—a claim that strikes at the heart of plea-bargaining norms.
They say the government crossed a line by tying criminal outcome to a choice between Costa Rica and deportation to Uganda. Immigrant-rights advocates call the approach “coercive plea bargaining” that risks pushing people to plead for reasons unrelated to the facts of the case.
Legal experts warn:
- Removing someone to a country where they lack status—especially under threat—may conflict with domestic due process and international human-rights standards designed to prevent harm after removal.
- Those standards include the basic idea that the government should not force choices under fear of serious risk.
This situation is unusual even for those who follow strict immigration enforcement. Typically, if the home country refuses return or delays are expected, officials work through standard diplomatic channels to find a safe, legal place for removal. Here, Costa Rica placed a clear condition—acceptance only after any sentence—then the government allegedly shifted pressure to Uganda after a plea rejection.
Timeline presented by the defense
The defense motion lays out a stark timeline:
- Friday, August 22, 2025 — Abrego Garcia released and transferred to Maryland.
- Saturday, August 23, 2025 — Defense files its motion alleging coercion.
- Monday, August 25, 2025 — ICE orders him to appear in Baltimore and sets the cutoff to accept the Costa Rica deal that same morning.
They say the offer would be withdrawn if he refused, and they asked the court to step in to prevent immigration leverage from steering the criminal case.
Broader due-process concerns and potential consequences
The defense raises broader issues about what would happen if such tactics become common. Key concerns:
- Non-citizen defendants may feel forced to admit guilt to avoid deportation to unfamiliar or unsafe countries.
- This could undercut the court’s role as the check on government power and create a two-track system—one for citizens, one for non-citizens—where immigration pressure shapes outcomes independently of the evidence.
- For families, defendants might choose a plea to go somewhere familiar even if it means taking a criminal record, to avoid removal to a place with unclear safety.
The motion also points to the March 2025 wrongful deportation as evidence that removal actions can collide rapidly with criminal proceedings. If mistaken removals can happen mid-case, the defense argues, using deportation threats to push pleas is even more prone to abuse.
Government response, defense requests, and next steps
As of the latest filing, DHS and ICE have not issued on-the-record comments. The agencies may cite standard enforcement authority in removal matters and note that plea decisions rest with defendants and their counsel. The defense counters that when ICE sets a ticking clock and raises the risk of deportation to Uganda after a rejected deal, that timing materially affects a defendant’s choice.
Practically, Monday’s appearance at the ICE Baltimore Field Office could determine the next phase. If the Costa Rica offer is withdrawn, the lawyers expect ICE to pursue other options. The defense has asked the court to:
- Bar any use of deportation destinations in plea talks, and
- Ensure the criminal process runs on legal standards, not immigration threats.
A court ruling could set early guardrails before the January 2027 trial.
For readers tracking custody or removal steps, ICE maintains field office pages with contact details and notices. The government’s primary location-specific information channel is the ICE Baltimore Field Office: https://www.ice.gov/contact/field-offices/ero/baltimore.
Stakes and questions the court must decide
The legal test will come down to basic questions:
- Does using the threat of deportation to Uganda cross a line from tough bargaining into unfair pressure that can coerce a guilty plea?
- Does it create a risk of harm that the law should prevent?
- If allowed here, what prevents the practice from spreading to other cases?
Defense lawyers are placing those questions before the court as the Monday deadline looms and the January 2027 trial approaches.
The case sits at the intersection of two systems—the criminal courts (which decide guilt and punishment) and the immigration system (which decides custody and removal). When those systems overlap, a deadline, a change in deportation destination, or public rebuke can shift a person’s fate in days.
The court’s next actions could shape not just this case but how far immigration pressure can reach into plea talks going forward.
This Article in a Nutshell
Defense lawyers allege federal officials threatened deportation to Uganda to force Kilmar Abrego Garcia into a guilty plea, giving a Costa Rica offer that expired August 25, 2025; the motion argues this violates due process and asks the court to block such immigration-based coercion.
