Border czar Tom Homan argues US justified in removing ‘public safety threat’ Abrego Garcia to El Salvador
White House “Border Czar” Tom Homan speaks with ABC News while appearing on ‘This Week.’ Via ABC News.
(WASHINGTON) — Trump White House border czar Tom Homan stood by the administration’s position on the return to the U.S. of Kilmer Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran national the Justice Department said was erroneously deported to a prison in his home country, and waived off responsibility for the migrant’s status in an interview with ABC News.
Homan spoke with “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an interview that will air this Sunday about the case and repeated the Trump administration’s allegations that Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 member and a violent threat to the public.
“We removed a public safety threat, a national security threat, a violent gang member from the United States,” he alleged.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys and family members have denied that he is a member of MS-13, and the gang allegations are being disputed in court.
Watch more of Jonathan Karl’s interview with Tom Homan on “This Week” at 9 a.m. Sunday on ABC.
However, much of the evidence that has been cited by President Donald Trump and his allies, such as clothing they argue symbolizes gang membership, has not been brought up in court since the current administration began litigating this case.
The Supreme Court unanimously ordered the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. for a trial. As of Friday, the administration has not taken active steps to do so.
When asked by Karl about the order, Homan claimed the Trump administration does not have the right or ability to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and argued Abrego Garcia is under the authority of the El Salvador government.
“I understand that ‘facilitate,’ but he’s also in the custody — he’s a citizen and a national of the country of El Salvador. El Salvador would certainly have to cooperate in that,” Homan said.
“But again, I’m out of the loop on that. I’m not an attorney. I’m not litigating this case. We’ll do whatever the law says we have to do, but I think and I stand by the fact [that] I think we did the right thing here,” he said.
Homan also joined Trump and other Republicans in their criticism of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who traveled to El Salvador this week and met with Abrego Garcia.
“You know, what bothers me more than that is a U.S. senator traveled to El Salvador on taxpayer dime to meet with an MS-13 gang member, [a] public safety threat, terrorist,” Homan said, without providing evidence that Van Hollen is using taxpayer money for the trip.
When ABC News reached out to Van Hollen’s office for comment on how the trip was funded, his office replied, “the Senator traveled in his official capacity with bipartisan approval to follow up on the case of a constituent and conduct oversight of U.S. foreign assistance programs. He did fly commercial.”
Abrego Garcia has never been convicted of a crime in the U.S., and his wife, Jennifer Vasquez, told ABC News on Wednesday that her husband has “never been convicted for anything.”
Homan accused the senator of not taking time to meet with victims of MS-13 gang members in his state and inaction under the Biden administration to address border concerns.
“What concerns me is Van Hollen never went to the border the last four years under Joe Biden. … What shocks me is he’s remained silent on the travesty that happened on the southern border. Many people died, thousands of people died,” he said.
Upon returning to the U.S., Van Hollen told reporters his trip was about more than Abrego Garcia’s case.
“This case is not only about one man, as important as that is,” Van Hollen said. “It is about protecting fundamental freedoms and the fundamental principle in the Constitution for due process that protects everybody who resides in America.”
(WASHINGTON) — On the campaign trail, and in the weeks leading up to his return to the White House, President Donald Trump vowed to hit the ground running — what experts describe as a “flood the zone” strategy to push forward on his conservative and controversial policies.
The pace has meant an often unprecedented first 100 days in office: “Trump speed,” the White House calls it.
Earlier this month, he told Republican lawmakers at a party dinner: “We’re setting records right now. We’re getting more things approved than any president has ever done in the first 100 days. It’s not even close. I had somebody say the most successful month — first month in the history. Now they said the most successful 100 days in the history of our country.”
How he’s done so, legal experts told ABC News, will have a long-lasting impact on the presidency and the federal government.
His main strategy has been to sign executive orders almost daily, including ones that challenge Congress’ power to fund and oversee federal agencies and programs, while others relentlessly test the limits of immigration enforcement.
Other presidents on both sides of the aisle have tried to flex their executive muscle, such as President Joe Biden’s EO to require 50% of cars and light trucks sold to be zero-emission electric vehicles by 2030, according to Tabitha Bonilla, research assistant professor at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.
“Every president over the last few decades have been trying to add more power to the executive branch and forward their agenda,” Bonilla told ABC News. “Trump is taking that to the extreme.”
As an example, experts cited Trump using legal and financial threats to punish universities and law firms for alleged political opposition and failure to “align” with his agenda, as well as his wholesale firings of top career officials, replacing them with loyalists.
James Sample, a constitutional law expert at Hofstra University, said that Trump’s playbook appears to be straight out of Project 2025, a blueprint for “taking the reins of the federal government” prepared for years by Trump’s most conservative allies in anticipation of his comeback — although Trump claimed to never have read it.
Trump and his supporters said his actions are justified because unelected bureaucrats and judges, they claim, had seized control from presidents — the one person elected nationwide, they argue, and granted total executive power by the Constitution.
Regardless, Sample said, the tactic should raise a red flag.
“The purpose of a blitzkrieg is to overwhelm the opposition,” he said.
While Trump’s tactics have been met with little to no protest from the Republican lawmakers who control the House and Senate, the judicial branch has often been ready to stem the flood through rulings and injunctions in dozens of court cases.
Still, experts told ABC News, that even if all of Trump’s moves are blocked or even reversed, they have done both serious short-term and long-term damage.
“It’s all about implanting the narrative,” Bonilla said. “Trump’s policies and rhetoric have pushed everything to the right and hurt our strength on the global scale.”
Floodgates opened
Since Trump took office on Jan. 20, he has issued more than 140 executive orders on various policies as of Monday, shattering records and upending widely held interpretations of federal law and the Constitution.
President Joe Biden, by comparison, issued 162 EOs in his entire term, and Trump issued more than 30 executive orders during the first 100 days of his first term, according to historical records.
White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Fox News in March that in this second term, the Trump team knew it needed to act fast, citing the midterm elections in November 2026 that could change the congressional map.
“This 18 months is our time frame. One hundred days, certainly six months into the year, and 18 months, are sort of our benchmarks,” she said.
The “flood the zone” goal has been long-touted by Trump’s allies.
His former White House political adviser Steve Bannon appeared to coin the idea during Trump’s first term. After Trump left office, conservative activists and Trump loyalists crafted a proposed battle plan for a second term.
In a 2023 speech, Russell Vought, a chief architect of Project 2025 and now Trump’s current director of the Office of Management and Budget, laid out one strategy at his Center for Renewing America, a pro-Trump Washington think tank.
“I want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected because they are increasingly viewed as villains. We want to put them in trauma,” he said in a speech reported by ProPublica.
Video of his making that speech was brought up during Vought’s confirmation hearings earlier this year but he repeatedly avoiding answering questions about his provocative rhetoric and plans.
Many of Trump’s EOs have dealt with Elon Musk’s brainchild — the Department of Government Efficiency, which has slashed agency budgets and tens of thousands of federal employees throughout the country, while others have pushed forward the president’s crackdown on immigration, such as the end to birthright citizenship and deporting migrants as alleged foreign invaders under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
Bernadette Meyler, the Carl and Sheila Spaeth professor of law at Stanford Law School, told ABC News that executive orders have always been a tool presidents have used to set their agenda, even if just symbolically.
“It is an effective tactic. It’s difficult even for courts to react rapidly,” Meyler said.
Conservative groups have long advocated for a federal government shakeup and agued that the president needed more power to make the country more efficient.
“What he’s doing is kickstarting what will ultimately be our legislative agenda,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in January after Trump’s first round of executive orders.
The Heritage Foundation, the far right think tank that helped to produce Project 2025, has contended that Trump’s efforts are essential and fast action can make the government more efficient.
Lindsey Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, and Jonathan Butcher, a senior research fellow at the think tank, referenced this idea in a statement last month after Trump issued an executive order for a drastic reduction in force for the Department of Education.
“Reducing the bloated bureaucracy will give state and local education officials more decision-making authority,” they said.
War of words, resistance to courts
Legal experts said another effective aspect of the “flood the zone” tactic was Trump’s multiple media appearances and photo ops, where he continues to make controversial and provocative claims.
Meyler contends Trump’s war of words is part of a deeper tactic to undermine the public’s trust in the federal government.
She noted even with courts issuing injunctions, Trump’s statements and resistance to judge’s orders with aggressive appeals has still moved the needle more toward the right.
“It can seem he is doing a lot even without of lot of judicial action,” Meyler said.
How much steam is left?
Trump and his allies have been adamant that they will stick to their plans to reassert the powers of the executive branch long after the first 100 days are up and are vowing to take all of their cases up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
As of Sunday, there have been 217 court cases against the second Trump administration, according to an ABC News accounting, and a large majority of those have led to temporary restraining orders, reversals and, in some cases, full-on blocks of Trump’s agenda.
“In the first Trump administration, we saw a lot of executive actions in the beginning and then saw it slow down,” Bonilla said. “We will be living in the space of a lot happening all at once for a while, but at some point, there is going to be a moment where there is so much that [the executive branch] can’t keep up.”
Meyler agreed but added that Trump, the Project 2025 architects and their allies have stated that they are willing to work with Congress to get their agenda passed through legislative channels.
“That might secure his policies, and slow things down, and avoid the courts,” she said.
That pivot will meet more resistance, especially as we approach the midterms, according to Meyler.
“It’s easier for some than others because of various practical matters, but there is a tipping point,” she said. “People are already protesting and Trump’s public ratings are dipping.”
Still, future presidents will likely emulate the “flood the zone” tactic in their first weeks, according to Meyler.
“Over the long course of presidential history, there is rarely a retraction of presidential power,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department has rescinded a policy implemented during the Biden administration that restricted prosecutors from seizing reporters’ records in criminal investigations, according to an internal memo obtained by ABC News.
The move could signal a broader effort by Trump-appointed leadership to more aggressively pursue leaks coming from within the administration and directly target journalists for their reporting.
It was not immediately clear whether the impending policy change was prompted by any current ongoing investigation being pursued by the Trump Justice Department. But in her memo rescinding the policy, Attorney General Pam Bondi pointed to recent alleged leaks of potentially classified information to The New York Times.
“Federal government employees intentionally leaking sensitive information to the media undermines the ability of the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law, protect civil rights, and keep America safe. This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop,” Bondi said. “Therefore, I have concluded that it is necessary to rescind (former Attorney General) Merrick Garland’s policies precluding the Department of Justice from seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks.”
Bondi added she has directed the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy to publish new language that reflects the department “will continue to employ procedural protections to limit the use of compulsory legal process to obtain information from or records of members of the news media, which include enhanced approval and advance-notice procedures.”
“These procedural protections recognize that investigative techniques relating to newsgathering are an extraordinary measure to be deployed as a last resort when essential to a successful investigation or prosecution,” Bondi said.
The 2022 Biden-era policy was formalized following extensive negotiations between news outlets and Justice Department leadership under Garland. It restricted prosecutors from using “compulsory process” such as subpoenas, search warrants or other court orders to seize reporters’ records with very limited exceptions.
It was implemented after the department disclosed several instances during the previous Trump administration where prosecutors secretly obtained records from several journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN as part of criminal leak investigations.
“Because freedom of the press requires that members of the news media have the freedom to investigate and report the news, the new regulations are intended to provide enhanced protection to members of the news media from certain law enforcement tools and actions that might unreasonably impair news gathering,” Garland said in a statement announcing the revised media guidelines.
Last month, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the opening of a criminal investigation into the leak of an intelligence document reported by The New York Times related to the Tren de Aragua gang that he described as “inaccurate, but nevertheless classified.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has also said her department and the FBI are pursing criminal charges against officials who she said have leaked details about pending deportation operations to members of the media.
Prior to his confirmation as FBI director, Kash Patel said in several media appearances that the Trump administration would “come after” journalists who reported on President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.
“We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Patel said in a 2023 podcast interview with Steve Bannon. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”
The policy shift also comes as DOJ and FBI leadership have downplayed recent revelations of senior Trump officials sharing sensitive details about military operations in Yemen over the encrypted app Signal, which national security experts have argued likely included classified information that would normally prompt some kind of federal investigation.
Bondi signaled late last month that any criminal investigation into the matter was unlikely.
(WASHINGTON) — The House Oversight Committee is hearing from the high-profile Democratic governors of Illinois, Minnesota and New York on Thursday during a timely hearing about their states’ immigration policies that some members of the Republican-led committee call “sanctuary” policies that they claim shield criminal illegal aliens from immigration enforcement.
JB Pritzker of Illinois, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York are appearing at a closely watched hearing that comes as another Democratic-led state — California — is grappling with a slew of immigration-related protests that triggered President Donald Trump to deploy U.S. Marines and the National Guard to the area.
House Oversight Chair James Comer requested in April that these Democratic governors testify, claiming that the “Trump administration is taking decisive action to deport criminal illegal aliens from our nation, but reckless sanctuary states like Illinois, Minnesota, and New York are actively seeking to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.”
“The governors of these states must explain why they are prioritizing the protection of criminal illegal aliens over the safety of U.S. citizens, and they must be held accountable,” Comer said in a media advisory for the upcoming hearing.
Sanctuary states still enforce U.S. federal immigration laws, but the term often refers to a limited collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while enacting policies that are more favorable to undocumented people.
The Democratic governors have been preparing to testify and getting ready to defend their records on immigration and public safety, according to hearing material reviewed by ABC News. They’ll also highlight how their states cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
“Despite the rhetoric of Republicans in Congress, Governor Pritzker will share facts about how this bipartisan public safety law is fully compliant with federal law and ensures law enforcement can focus on doing their jobs well,” a spokesperson for the Illinois governor said in a statement ahead of the hearing.
Also ahead of the hearing, the state of Illinois retained outside counsel to provide expertise in order to respond to the committee’s requests, the spokesperson said, claiming that “congressional Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars all to find out that Illinois has always followed the law.”
A spokesperson for the Democratic Governors Association also suggested that their leaders were focused on governing rather than spending time on “political stunts.”
“While Republicans in D.C. spend their time pulling political stunts, Democratic governors are busy getting real things done for their states, lowering costs, and keeping people safe,” Johanna Warshaw, a spokesperson for the group, said in a statement.
In March, the Oversight Committee held another newsy hearing with “sanctuary city” mayors including Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Those leaders defended their actions on immigration enforcement while Republicans on the committee accused them of increasing crime by defying Trump administration immigration policies.
On Wednesday, House Oversight Republicans released a three-minute digital ad to show “how sanctuary polices do not protect Americans,” which features buzzy news broadcasts about immigration-adjacent crimes, testimony from mayors earlier this spring at the “sanctuary cities” House hearing and video clips of Pritzker, Walz and Hochul speaking about immigration policy.
“Sanctuary governors are shielding CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS, then pretending the consequences don’t exist. Tomorrow Hochul, Walz, and Pritzker will be in the hot seat as their policies cause CHAOS in their states. Here’s what they don’t want you to see,” the Committee’s official account posted on X.
