For the past month, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has been thrust into an international standoff as he tries to secure the return of a Salvadoran national who had been living in Maryland when the Trump Administration mistakenly sent him to prison in El Salvador.
TIME spoke with Van Hollen on Wednesday, a day after President Donald Trump acknowledged in an ABC News interview that he “could” free Kilmar Abrego Garcia from an El Salvador prison but refuses to do so. The Senator, who met with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador earlier this month, slammed Trump for refusing to intervene in the case: “We are in a constitutional crisis,” he says, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision instructing the Trump Administration to “facilitate” his return. Last week, Trump told TIME that he hadn’t asked President Nayib Bukele to return Abrego Garcia, explaining, “I haven’t been asked to ask him by my attorneys.”
Trump has repeatedly claimed without evidence that Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member—an assertion largely based on a photoshopped image of his tattoos circulated on social media. “If he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Trump told ABC News on Tuesday. “But he’s not.”
Van Hollen also called for a tourism boycott of El Salvador, which is being paid $6 million by the U.S. government to jail immigrants being deported. “Until the government of El Salvador stops conspiring with the Trump Administration to violate constitutional rights, people should stay away from El Salvador,” he says. Van Hollen added he was told by El Salvador’s Vice President that the Central American country was only keeping his constituent because of a financial deal with the Trump Administration to hold any deportee it sends.
Here’s what Van Hollen told TIME about why he believes constitutional rights of all Americans are at stake in the Abrego Garcia case.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
In the ABC interview, Trump said that he could return Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he wanted to. What was your reaction to that?
My reaction is that President Trump admitted what we all know, which is that he has the power to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia. In fact, he just admitted that he could do it, and that also means he’s admitting that he’s defying the court order.
I want to ask about that more in a second. But first, in our interview with Trump last week, he said he was leaving the case up to his lawyers. What do you make of that—the President of the United States saying he’s not the one making the decision on this?
He’s just trying to shift responsibility. This is a President who says that the buck stops with him, but whenever he gets a tough question, he points to others in the Administration. He’s clearly trying to deflect responsibility for his ongoing violation of court orders and his ongoing violation of the Constitution and due process.
Do you know who on his legal team is the leading voice on this? Have you tried contacting them?
I don’t know. We all know that the original Trump lawyer in the case admitted in federal court that the Trump Administration had wrongfully seized and shipped Abrego Garcia off to prison in El Salvador. Of course, that lawyer was punished for telling the truth in court. Since then, I really don’t know who is representing the views of the Trump Administration. I did see Attorney General Bondi during the meeting in the Oval Office with President Bukele say that the United States would be willing to send a plane down to El Salvador to pick up Abrego Garcia. They should do that.
Trump also told TIME that he hasn’t been asked to ask President Bukele to return Abrego Garcia. But the Supreme Court ruled that his Administration must “facilitate” his return. What’s your reaction to that comment from him, and do you believe the country is currently in a constitutional crisis?
Well, the President’s answer shows that he’s openly defying a court order, and yes, we are in a constitutional crisis when the Trump Administration is violating the Constitution and due process rights and refusing to comply with a court order. As everyone knows, it’s pretty rare that we see a nine-to-zero ruling out of the Supreme Court and such a strong opinion from the Fourth Circuit.
And you’ve said the only reason that El Salvador is keeping Abrego Garcia is because they entered into an agreement with the United States. So if, like you said, El Salvador is contractually obligated to hold him, what could Trump do to reverse that?
He can simply say that El Salvador is not contractually obligated to illegally keep Abrego Garcia. It’s not me that’s saying that—it was the Vice President of El Salvador who told me directly that the government of El Salvador was holding Abrego Garcia because the Trump Administration is paying them to do so. It could not have been [more] clear. He said that the ball was in our court, meaning America’s court.
And you wrote a letter to Trump on this yesterday. What did you say?
Well, I made the point that this case is not just about one man—Abrego Garcia. It’s about all of us, and if you can violate one person’s constitutional rights, you threaten the constitutional rights of everybody who lives in America. I spelled out the details of Abrego Garcia’s case. I pointed out to the President that his own Administration had admitted that he’d been wrongfully deported, and then I reported in detail on my conversation with the Vice President of El Salvador, which revealed very clearly that the Trump Administration could bring him back, and that the Trump administration was in flagrant disregard of the court orders.
Have you gotten a response to that letter? Do you expect to get a response?
Well, I’ve not gotten a response to the letter, but we did see in the ABC interview that the President publicly admitted that he could just pick up the phone and facilitate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Are you planning another trip to El Salvador, or are you thinking of going back to check in on him and push for his release?
I’m going to continue to push to secure the constitutional due process rights of Mr. Abrego Garcia, using whatever tools I think are most effective. And again, I want to remind people that I’m not vouching for Mr. Abrego Garcia. I’m vouching for his rights because they implicate everybody’s rights.
What else can Congress, or Democrats, do about Abrego Garcia’s case and the other deportation cases?
Well, I think we can continue to shine a spotlight on the fact that the President and his Administration are violating the Constitution. Recent surveys show that the American public is not buying his story or his efforts to change the conversation. They understand that their own constitutional rights are at stake in this case, because if you can violate them for one person, you can violate them for all. The other thing I will say is that we can put economic pressure on the government of El Salvador. One thing that President Bukele wants more than anything else is to have a strong economy. So I have said that American tourists can vote with their feet. There are lots of wonderful countries in Central America, including Costa Rica, including Guatemala, and until the government of El Salvador stops conspiring with the Trump Administration to violate constitutional rights, people should stay away from El Salvador. I’ve also encouraged states to divest holdings from their pension funds with respect to businesses in El Salvador. The Governor of Illinois recently said he was going to pursue that. And finally, I’m working with colleagues to take other actions to put pressure on the government of El Salvador.
Trump has repeated the unproven accusation that Abrego Garcia is part of MS-13, which the Administration has designated a foreign terrorist group. What did you make of the argument Trump made in the ABC interview over the image of tattoos on his knuckles being proof that he’s a gang member?
Well, as you know, that’s been subject to many fact checkers, but my bottom line remains what I’ve said repeatedly, including in my letter to the President, which is that they should put up or shut up in court. Enough of the social media. Go present any evidence you have to the court. That is where we resolve these questions. That is where people testify under oath. And I will point out once again that the U.S. District Court Judge in this case, Judge Xinis, said that the Trump Administration has provided “no evidence linking Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or any terrorist activity.” So enough on social media, put up or shut up in court.
Read the full article here
