Trump and Bukele Defy Supreme Ruling in Case of Wrongly Deported American Resident

In a dramatic clash between executive power and the judiciary, former President Donald Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele are under fire for defying a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling ordering the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a lawful U.S. resident wrongfully deported to El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father with no criminal record, was deported in March 2025 after an administrative mishap despite an active court order protecting him. Upon arrival in El Salvador, he was immediately imprisoned in the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center—a facility reserved for gang members and violent criminals.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was unequivocal: the deportation was illegal, and the federal government must facilitate his return. But instead of complying, Trump has dismissed the court’s authority in the matter, stating that the judiciary has “no jurisdiction over foreign policy decisions.” Meanwhile, President Bukele has flatly refused to release Abrego Garcia, calling him a “terrorist” without presenting evidence—an accusation critics argue is both baseless and politically motivated.

The joint defiance from both leaders has stunned legal experts and human rights advocates, sparking concerns about the erosion of the rule of law. “This isn’t just about one man’s wrongful deportation,” said constitutional scholar Erica Velasquez. “This is about whether our courts still have binding power in the face of political will.”

Critics argue that Trump’s stance marks a dangerous precedent—one in which the executive branch can simply ignore the highest court in the land. The implications could ripple far beyond immigration policy, potentially undermining the foundations of constitutional governance and judicial independence.

At the heart of this story is a man—Kilmar Abrego Garcia—caught in a geopolitical tug-of-war, held in a foreign prison for a mistake the courts have already acknowledged. His family in Maryland has pleaded for his return, but so far, their calls have gone unanswered.

The battle lines are drawn: between the courts and the commander-in-chief, between justice and political calculation. The question now is—who really holds the power when the highest court speaks and no one listens?