In a stunning display of political miscalculation, former President Donald Trump has inadvertently weakened his own case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was wrongfully deported. In two separate interviews, Trump openly admitted that he has the authority to bring Garcia back to the United States, Yet chose not to, citing the advice of his lawyers. This admission has raised questions about the legitimacy of the Trump administration’s actions and could have major legal consequences as the case moves forward.
Trump’s Inadvertent Admission
Trump’s remarks about Kilmar Abrego Garcia during interviews with Time magazine and ABC News are as revealing as they are damaging. On both occasions, he clearly stated that he could facilitate Garcia’s return to the U.S. at any time, but he chose not to because his lawyers advised him against it.
“I could bring him back and retry him,” Trump told Time, adding that it wouldn’t bother him, but he “leaves that decision to the lawyers.” He doubled down on this in his ABC News interview, saying, “If he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” referencing Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, under whose authority Garcia is currently detained. Trump’s claim that his lawyers were advising him not to act reveals an attempt to deflect responsibility for his own failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive to return Garcia to the U.S.
The Fallout from Trump’s Admission
By saying these things out loud, Trump not only revealed his defiance of the Supreme Court but also opened a new line of inquiry into the government’s internal legal processes. Abrego Garcia’s lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, has now vowed to pursue legal action to uncover who in the administration is advising the president to ignore the court order.
According to Sandoval-Moshenberg, the discovery process will involve document requests and depositions, which could uncover the individuals responsible for advising Trump not to facilitate Garcia’s return. This could also mean greater scrutiny of Stephen Miller, former President Trump’s hardline immigration adviser, whose influence in shaping deportation policies is well-documented.
“We’re going to peel back layer after layer of the onion,” said Sandoval-Moshenberg. “Until we find out exactly which government officials gave him that instruction.” This, in turn, could open up a major legal battle, particularly as questions arise over whether Miller’s influence over Trump’s legal decisions violated due process rights.
Weakening His Own Legal Defense
Trump’s admission has significantly weakened his defense in this case. The administration has repeatedly argued that the president cannot command El Salvador to release Garcia, but Trump’s public admission undermines this argument. If Trump truly wanted Garcia to return to the U.S., he could have instructed Bukele to release him, and the process could have been expedited. Instead, Trump is using the excuse of legal advice as a cover for his inaction.
This legal defense is also at odds with Trump’s initial justification for deporting Garcia in the first place. The administration claimed that Garcia was a threat to public safety due to his alleged ties to the MS-13 gang. However, the evidence for these claims is weak, and Trump’s refusal to bring Garcia back further erodes the credibility of his original arguments.
The Larger Implications for Trump’s Immigration Strategy
This episode provides a rare window into the broader goals of Trump and his immigration adviser, Stephen Miller. Miller has advocated for an expansive and unaccountable exercise of presidential power in the area of immigration enforcement, seeking to bypass due process protections and sidestep judicial oversight. Trump’s admission that he could act in compliance with the Supreme Court but chooses not to illustrates how Miller’s strategy may be rooted in a fundamental disregard for legal norms.
Miller’s rhetoric has often dismissed due process as an impediment to swift deportations, with statements such as “Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens” and “The judicial process is for Americans.” His framing of immigration enforcement as a national emergency, free from constitutional oversight, has long been a cornerstone of his hardline approach.
But Trump’s repeated acknowledgment that he could comply with the law on Abrego Garcia’s case exposes the fatal flaw in this ideology: while Miller may call for unchecked presidential power, the legal system, even with its flaws, remains a check on such authority. And Trump’s casual disregard for the law only highlights the dangerous potential of unrestrained executive power.
The Way Forward for Garcia’s Case
With Trump’s admission, the case against Abrego Garcia has taken a dramatic turn. Legal experts, including Roger Parloff of Lawfare, suggest that the transparency created by these statements could significantly impact the outcome of the case.
“The president has said he could bring Abrego Garcia back, but he won’t,” Parloff said. “I think Judge Xinis will try to get to the bottom of that.”
This could result in deeper legal scrutiny and force the Trump administration to answer difficult questions about its actions and inactions, all of which could undermine its broader immigration agenda.
In the end, Trump’s clumsy admission that he could easily rectify the wrong done to Abrego Garcia but refuses to do so may not just cost him this case—it could also significantly weaken the foundation of his entire immigration policy. The more we learn about these internal decisions, the more it becomes clear: this case could expose the dark underbelly of a broader attempt to circumvent the rule of law in the pursuit of unchecked presidential power.
