El Salvador Defies U.S.: President Bukele Refuses to Return Abrego Garcia [2025 Update]

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has rejected U.S. requests to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia after his controversial deportation. Despite a U.S. Supreme Court order saying the removal was illegal, Bukele maintains that Abrego Garcia will remain in Salvadoran custody. This high-profile standoff now puts legal, political, and human rights issues in sharp focus. With both countries sticking to their positions, the stakes are high for international law, migrant rights, and the future of cooperation between the U.S. and El Salvador.

Background: Who is Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Why Was He Deported?

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s story has drawn national attention after his sudden deportation and the ongoing dispute between the U.S. and El Salvador. His journey from a Maryland resident to the center of a cross-border tug of war illustrates how single immigration cases can spotlight deeper legal and humanitarian problems. Understanding his background and the legal safeguards that were in place helps explain why his removal set off such a loud alarm on both sides of the border.

Maryland Resident with Deep Roots

Kilmar Abrego Garcia moved to the U.S. from El Salvador as a teenager. He settled in Maryland and became part of the local community, working hard and starting a family. Neighbors and relatives have described him as a dedicated father. For many years, he lived openly and built a life, despite the risks facing undocumented immigrants.

Recent reports detail how he balanced steady work and raising his children, anchoring himself in American life. His story could echo that of countless others who have made Maryland their home, blending into the fabric of neighborhoods while always carrying the shadow of possible deportation. For many in Maryland and beyond, his name is now a reminder of families suddenly torn apart by immigration decisions.

The 2019 Judgment: Legal Protection from Deportation

In 2019, a federal immigration judge heard Abrego Garcia’s asylum case. While his initial request for asylum was denied, the judge agreed he faced a real threat of harm in El Salvador. As a result, and as confirmed by news outlets like 6abc, the court granted him what’s known as "withholding of removal." This protection is meant to prevent the U.S. from sending someone back to a country where they’d likely face threats or violence.

Withholding of removal is not a path to a green card, but it lets recipients stay in the U.S. and work legally. This order should have kept Abrego Garcia safe from deportation, as long as he complied with all legal requirements. It was a safeguard that recognized the dangers awaiting him in El Salvador—a critical step that makes his later removal all the more shocking.

Wrongful Deportation: What Went Wrong?

Despite these protections, Abrego Garcia was detained by federal officers in Maryland and put on a plane to El Salvador in early 2025. According to outlets like the BBC and NPR, this move came after an "administrative error." A breakdown in communication or oversight led authorities to ignore the judge’s order shielding him from removal.

His deportation not only violated the 2019 judgment but also triggered swift legal and diplomatic backlash. Abrego Garcia should have remained protected under U.S. immigration law, yet he suddenly found himself back in El Salvador—a country his own judge said was dangerous for him.

The Legal Fallout

Within days, the U.S. Supreme Court called the deportation illegal and ordered efforts to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. Government records confirm he should never have been removed because of his protected status. These legal missteps have since sparked outrage among immigration advocates and the public, raising bigger questions about due process and accountability.

As of now, the standoff continues. President Bukele’s refusal to return Abrego Garcia has only added fuel to an already heated debate, drawing in legal experts, human rights groups, and policymakers. Whether the U.S. will succeed in its efforts remains an open question, but it's clear: Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case has become a touchstone for how legal protections can go awry—and what’s at stake when they do.

El Salvador’s Response and Bukele’s Rationale

Since the controversy erupted, President Nayib Bukele has stood firm on his refusal to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States. His decision has sparked debate on both sides of the border, amplifying attention on the close ties between El Salvador’s government and U.S. political leaders, as well as the legal footing Bukele claims for his stance. Understanding Bukele’s motivations gives clearer insight into the standoff.

Political Alliances with the U.S.: Explore the working relationship between Bukele and former President Trump that influences Bukele’s stance

Photo by Kaboompics.com

President Bukele’s approach can’t be separated from his high-profile partnership with former President Donald Trump. Over the past years, their working relationship has grown stronger, shaping many decisions that cross both governments. During Trump’s administration, El Salvador often backed hardline immigration measures and supported speedy deportations, a move that earned trust between the two leaders.

Recent meetings between Bukele and Trump, including private talks at the White House, have cemented this partnership. Their public comments show mutual respect, even as the U.S. faces global criticism over its handling of migrant rights. Outlets like ABC News note Trump’s praise for Bukele’s tactical alignment with U.S. priorities, especially when it comes to reducing crime and halting migration flows.

Bukele’s refusal to return Abrego Garcia fits this established pattern. He defends the action by explaining his country’s position and pushing back against what some describe as outside pressure. As Politico describes in “The benefits of Bukele’s bromance with Trump,” Bukele’s actions reflect not just legal calculations, but also allegiance to strategic alliances that impact policy far beyond a single deportation case (Politico).

Legal Grounds Claimed by El Salvador: Describe the legal arguments Bukele’s government cites to refuse U.S. requests, emphasizing sovereignty and custody

Bukele’s government frames its refusal in legal language, leaning on issues of sovereignty and national custody. Salvadoran officials say that once Abrego Garcia entered Salvadoran territory, he fell under Salvadoran law. In recent press statements, Bukele himself emphasized that El Salvador has no obligation under international agreements to return a person who arrived “through a decision made by U.S. authorities,” legal or otherwise.

The administration points to several main arguments:

• Sovereignty: Bukele insists that El Salvador is an independent nation free to make decisions about people within its borders. In denying the U.S. request, his government stresses the right to decide who remains in custody and under what conditions.
• Legal Jurisdiction: Salvadoran officials argue that since U.S. authorities sent Abrego Garcia despite a court order, responsibility now falls on El Salvador to guarantee his rights as they would any citizen or resident. They claim the U.S. legal process cannot override Salvadoran authority once a person is within their jurisdiction.
• No Precedent: Bukele has stated publicly that there is no legal precedent or bilateral agreement forcing El Salvador to comply with a retroactive extradition or return demand, especially where prior deportations stemmed from U.S. administrative actions.

These arguments, outlined by media including the New York Times, are designed to show that El Salvador is acting well within international norms—and to strengthen Bukele’s position at home as a leader who stands up to foreign pressure.

Bukele’s united front, shown in his public and legal responses, frames the case as a matter of national dignity and respect for sovereign decisions, rather than simply bowing to the demands of a powerful ally. This strategy resonates with Bukele’s base and keeps the government’s authority at the center of the debate.