Staff Reports
In a saga that could only unfold in today’s topsy-turvy legal climate, the Trump administration is once again at odds with a federal judge over the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident mistakenly sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear acknowledgment that foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the executive branch, Judge Paula Xinis has insisted on daily updates and demanded the administration “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. It’s a classic case of judicial overreach, with a federal judge seemingly convinced her bench grants her the power to dictate international relations.
The Trump administration, for its part, has rightly pushed back, arguing that the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” does not mean the executive must perform diplomatic acrobatics or strong-arm a foreign government into compliance. The administration has made it clear: while it can remove domestic barriers, it cannot force El Salvador to release someone from its prison system. President Trump, standing firm on the principle of American sovereignty, has refused to let a federal judge’s overzealousness undermine the constitutional separation of powers.
Meanwhile, President Trump met with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, who flatly refused to return Abrego Garcia, likening such a move to “smuggling a terrorist” into his country. Bukele’s stance only underscores the reality that foreign governments are not beholden to the whims of U.S. district courts. The Trump administration’s willingness to work with El Salvador on broader security and immigration issues, while refusing to be bullied by judicial activism, is a refreshing return to common sense in foreign policy.
What’s truly astonishing is the judge’s persistence in threatening contempt and demanding compliance with orders that exceed her jurisdiction. The Supreme Court itself reminded Judge Xinis to show “appropriate respect” for the executive’s authority in foreign affairs—a gentle nudge that should have been unnecessary. Yet, the judge continues to act as if her gavel is a magic wand, capable of conjuring diplomatic miracles and overriding the Constitution’s clear allocation of powers.
This episode is a stark reminder of why the Founders vested foreign policy in the hands of the President, not the courts. Judicial activism, especially when it strays into the realm of international diplomacy, only serves to weaken America’s standing and embolden those who would exploit our legal system. The Trump administration’s steadfast defense of executive authority is not just a matter of policy—it’s a defense of the constitutional order itself. Let’s hope the courts finally get the message: judges rule on law, not on the conduct of foreign affairs.
