SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
maryland
Why Are Crypto Billionaires and AIPAC Spending $8+ Million to Elect Adrian Boafo?
Powerful interests recognize that this race represents a choice between maintaining the political status quo and building something different.
Jun 14, 2026
Every election tells us something about who holds power in America.
In Maryland's 5th Congressional District—the Democratic primary race to replace former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer—that lesson is arriving in the form of an avalanche of outside money. According to recent federal filings as of June 12, 2026, more than $8 million has been spent by outside groups to boost Adrian Boafo's congressional campaign. Nearly $4.8 million comes from Protect Progress, a crypto-industry super PAC backed by some of the wealthiest interests in the cryptocurrency world. Another $2.8 million comes from United Democracy Project, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC's) super PAC. Add another $500,000 from political organizations tied to longtime Washington power brokers, and the total exceeds $8.1 million.
That amount is staggering. It dwarfs the direct fundraising of the candidates themselves. It raises a fundamental question: Why are national special interests willing to spend so much money on a single congressional primary in Maryland?
The answer is simple. They understand what is at stake.
While outside groups spend millions trying to shape this election, Blegay has built a grassroots campaign centered on Medicare for All, universal childcare, workers' rights, housing justice, and human rights abroad and at home.
Across the country, voters are demanding a break from politics dominated by corporate influence, lobbyists, and billionaire donors. They are demanding Medicare for All instead of an insurance industry that profits from illness. They are demanding affordable housing, universal childcare, stronger labor protections, and an economy that works for working people rather than Wall Street. They are demanding an end to endless war and blank checks for militarism. They are demanding elected officials who answer to their communities instead of powerful donors.
The flood of money into Adrian Boafo's campaign is not happening because crypto billionaires or AIPAC suddenly became concerned about the everyday struggles of Maryland families. It is happening because powerful interests recognize that this race represents a choice between maintaining the political status quo and building something different.
The involvement of crypto-industry super PACs should concern anyone who believes democracy should not be for sale. The cryptocurrency industry has spent unprecedented amounts of money in recent election cycles in an effort to shape federal policy. Their goal is not a secret. They want lawmakers who will be friendly to their interests and resistant to regulations that could affect their profits. When millions of dollars from a national crypto super PAC suddenly appear in a congressional primary, voters should ask themselves what those investors expect in return.
The same question applies to AIPAC's unprecedented spending. Across the country, AIPAC and its affiliated organizations have spent heavily to defeat candidates who support a more balanced US policy toward Israel and Palestine or who have criticized the Israeli government's actions in Gaza. Whether one agrees with those candidates or not, it is impossible to ignore the broader trend: Enormous sums of money are being deployed to shape the boundaries of acceptable political debate.
The result is a political system where ordinary voters increasingly feel that their voices are drowned out by wealthy interests. Many Americans already believe that government works better for corporations and donors than it does for working families. When more than $8 million floods into a single congressional primary, it becomes harder to argue that those concerns are misplaced.
That is what makes Wala Blegay's candidacy so important.
While outside groups spend millions trying to shape this election, Blegay has built a grassroots campaign centered on Medicare for All, universal childcare, workers' rights, housing justice, and human rights abroad and at home. Long before she became a congressional candidate, she was organizing in her community, advocating for workers, and fighting for policies that put people ahead of corporate profits. She has been a consistent supporter of Medicare for All when many elected officials were unwilling to take that position. During the height of the devastation in Gaza, she stood publicly for a ceasefire and Palestinian human rights when doing so carried significant political risk.
Whether voters agree with every position she takes is beside the point. What matters is that she represents a vision of politics fundamentally different from the one being financed by outside interests. Her campaign is built on the belief that elected officials should answer to the people who elect them—not to super PACs, corporate donors, or wealthy political networks.
This election is about more than two candidates. It is about what kind of democracy we want to have. Do we want a system where a handful of powerful organizations can spend millions of dollars to shape local elections? Or do we want a system where ideas, organizing, and community support matter more than the size of a donor's bank account?
The fact that more than $8 million is being spent to influence this race tells us everything we need to know: Powerful interests are paying attention. They understand the stakes. They understand that the outcome of this election could help determine whether the next generation of Democratic leadership will answer to entrenched interests or to ordinary people.
The question now is whether voters are paying attention too.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Court Blocks 'Illegal' Trump Rule That Created Barriers to Affordable Care Act Coverage
With eligibility verification and fees, the rule was projected to force 2 million people to drop their insurance, said cities and advocacy groups that sued the administration.
Jun 12, 2026
Officials in several cities joined advocacy groups in celebrating a federal court ruling Friday that blocked the Trump administration's rule which, they argued in a lawsuit, illegally imposed new fees and created barriers "that would make it harder—and in some cases impossible—for people to get and keep affordable health insurance."
The cities of Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore; and Chicago were among the plaintiffs in a case filed last week in the US District Court of Maryland against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and other Trump officials, arguing that the so-called "Marketplace Integrity and Affordability" rule would destabilize the insurance market and penalize vulnerable families, "rather than promoting affordability."
The rule was introduced in May, months after Affordable Care Act subsidies that had made ACA insurance premiums more affordable for millions of people were allowed to expire by Republicans in Congress. More than 1 million fewer Americans signed up for coverage in ACA exchanges after the tax credits expired, and the Trump administration claimed that the new rule's provision of more "catastrophic" insurance plans would give more "choice" to people who couldn't afford plans that cover more healthcare needs.
The rule also required additional verification for low-income households before they enroll in ACA plans, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz claiming the new requirement "strengthens eligibility checks, cracks down on abuse, and gives insurers more flexibility to offer affordable, consumer-focused coverage options."
“Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2026 rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage."
The verification requirements and new fees could cause as many as 2 million people to drop their coverage, said Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, as well as raising annual costs by about $700 for families.
“Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2026 rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage, negating the ACA’s goal of extending affordable health coverage to all Americans, and instead increasing the population of underinsured and uninsured Americans,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.
In the ruling on Friday, US District Judge Brendan Hurson vacated several provisions of the rule, including ones that revoked guaranteed insurance coverage for people with past-due premiums; required eligibility verification for the special ACA enrollment period; and imposed a $5 premium penalty on people who automatically reenrolled in their plans.
Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the rule's provisions were among "the Trump-Vance administration’s illegal attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act."
“This ruling is a significant win for millions of Americans, including thousands in Ohio, who would have been denied coverage or seen their out-of-pocket costs skyrocket due to this president and his administration," said Klein. "We will continue to fight to protect healthcare coverage for all Americans whenever it’s threatened.”
Richard Trent, executive director of Main Street Alliance, a small business advocacy group that also joined the lawsuit, said that "the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act would have increased costs, created unnecessary barriers to coverage, and made it harder for entrepreneurs and workers to get the care they need."
"Small business owners cannot grow their businesses when healthcare becomes more expensive and less accessible," said Trent. "We are grateful that the court has protected these critical safeguards and reaffirmed that affordable healthcare remains essential to a strong economy and thriving Main Streets across the country."
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott also applauded the ruling, but emphasized that healthcare advocates' "work is not over."
As Common Dreams reported Friday, tied up in the Trump administration's push for more Americans to use high-deductible catastrophic insurance—which is likely to present families with high out-of-pocket costs—is a plan to push households into more medical debt by allowing them to take out loans directly from their health insurance companies.
“We will continue to fight back against any attempts by this administration to slash protections under the ACA," said Scott, "and will not stop fighting until every person in this nation has access to the affordable, quality healthcare they deserve.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maryland Residents to Pay $1.6 Billion More in Power Bills Due to Out-of-State Data Centers: Complaint
"Maryland customers have neither caused the need for these billions in new transmission projects, nor will they meaningfully benefit from them," said Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp.
May 08, 2026
A top state utilities regulator is calling foul on an effort to shift the power cost of out-of-state artificial intelligence data centers onto Maryland residents.
Maryland's Office of People's Counsel on Thursday filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against electric grid operator PJM Interconnection objecting to plans that it said would force residents in the state to pay $1.6 billion in data center-driven transmission costs over the next decade.
The complaint states that the transmission cost allocation methodology PJM is using "broadly socializes" the cost of increased power demands that is being driven by AI data centers.
"That result is unjust and unreasonable and violates the cost causation principles that have long governed transmission cost allocation and that this commission has repeatedly affirmed," the complaint says. "PJM’s tariff imposes these costs on Maryland electric customers even though Maryland customers do not meaningfully cause nor benefit from those investments."
The Office of People's Counsel pointed to the massive number of data centers built in neighboring Virginia as a primary culprit for added strain on the electric grid.
"Amidst national data center growth, Virginia stands as the epicenter," the complaint says. "Virginia is the largest data center market in the world... As of December 2024, data centers represented 3.6 GW of demand... reflecting, since 2013, a 660% increase in megawatt-hour consumption."
This explosive growth in energy demand is only expected to intensify over the next several years, the complaint continues, noting that "PJM projects 32 GW of peak load growth across its territory by 2030, of which approximately 30 GW is attributable to data centers."
As a remedy, the complaint asks FERC to "require PJM to take immediate action to assign data center-driven transmission costs to the PJM zones where the data center customers are located" instead of shifting the cost to Marylanders.
Commenting on his office's complaint, Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp said that the attempt to saddle Maryland consumers with a $1.6 billion bill for facilities outside the state's borders shows "PJM’s cost allocation rules are broken."
"Maryland customers have neither caused the need for these billions in new transmission projects," Lapp added, "nor will they meaningfully benefit from them."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents from across the country object to their mass resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utilities bills, as well as the noise pollution they generate.
As CNBC reported earlier this year, PJM currently projects that it will be a 6 GW short of its reliability requirements in 2027 thanks to the added demand from data centers.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maryland Becomes First US State to Ban Surveillance Pricing for Groceries
A new law will ban retailers from using shoppers' personal data to hike grocery prices—but consumer advocates warn it contains loopholes that companies could exploit.
Apr 27, 2026
Maryland will become the first US state to outlaw "surveillance pricing" for groceries after Democratic Gov. Wes Moore signed a bill on Monday barring retailers and food delivery services from using customers' personal data to alter prices.
The practice has already become rampant in online commerce, with companies like Amazon, Uber, and Delta Air Lines accused of using everything from browsing history and location to demographic information to squeeze every possible cent from consumers.
The Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, which takes effect in Maryland beginning on October 1, targets the growing use of such tactics by grocery chains and delivery apps, which Moore has accused of using "new technologies to drive up the bill for working families."
These include electronic shelf labels, which advocates have warned could allow companies to instantly change grocery prices based on the time of day, weather, and other factors that influence consumer demand.
“Digital price tags are replacing paper ones. It’s happening because we are having cameras that are watching aisles, it’s happening because we have apps that are moving from search-based to predictive,” Moore said.
Moore has cited an investigation published in December by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative, which found that Instacart was running a “pricing experiment” that charged some customers as much as 23% more for the same items than others based on shoppers' personal data.
Another investigation by Consumer Reports last May found that Kroger was collecting lengthy profiles of individual customers, including estimates of their household size, education level, income, and even perceived "loyalty" to the company, along with sometimes dozens of other pages of personal data.
"Surveillance pricing can drive up the price of food," said Grace Gedye, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. "Retailers have a lot of data about individual shoppers: how often we search for or hover over particular items, whether we live near competitor stores, inferences about our likes and dislikes, our dietary needs, our income, our family size, and more."
"Surveillance pricing," she said, "allows companies to take advantage of that information asymmetry and charge you as much as they think you’re individually willing to pay.”
To combat this, Maryland's new law requires that shelf prices remain steady for one full business day. It also bars retailers from using surveillance data, such as inferred income, ethnicity, family size, neighborhood, or purchasing history, to raise prices for individuals.
Companies that violate the law will receive civil penalties of up to $10,000 for first offenses and $25,000 for repeat offenses. They will also be given 45 days to correct violations before these fines apply.
Gedye said, "While it’s encouraging to see the Maryland Legislature take up this issue, this law has loopholes that will limit its real-world impact."
The law faced fierce opposition from industry groups, including the Maryland Retailers Alliance. The group ultimately withdrew its opposition, but only after several new provisions were introduced that Consumer Reports said "undercut" the law's effectiveness.
While the law bans the use of personal data to set higher prices, the group said there is no way to determine what constitutes a "baseline or standard price," meaning price fluctuations could easily be marketed as discounts. It also said companies could use loyalty and subscription programs—which are exempt from the law—to raise prices.
The group also warned that the law is too hard to enforce, since only the Maryland attorney general, not customers themselves, can bring suits, which it said is a "departure from Maryland’s primary consumer protection law."
Many other states—including California, New York, and Illinois—are considering similar bans, and legislation has been proposed at the federal level to outlaw surveillance and surge-pricing practices nationwide.
Gedye said, "We urge other state legislatures considering personalized pricing legislation to build in stronger consumer protections and avoid loopholes that weakened this bill.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Malicious Abuse of Power': Trump Slammed for New Arrest of Ábrego García and Deportation Threat
"This vindictive behavior is not just about Mr. Ábrego García; this is once again the administration showing that it can weaponize the law to punish people standing up for their rights and make our immigrant neighbors afraid," said one advocate.
Aug 25, 2025
A crowd of community members who had gathered outside an immigration office in Baltimore on Monday chanted, "Shame!" as a lawyer for US resident Kilmar Ábrego García announced that he had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents once again—days after he was finally released from prison after a monthslong ordeal.
Attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg told the crowd that assembled to show support for Ábrego García that ICE had ordered the Maryand father and sheet metal worker to report to its offices for an interview on "false" pretenses and said his legal team is filing a habeas corpus petition to challenge the administration's plan to deport Ábrego García to Uganda.
Ábrego García's lawyers are arguing in the Federal District Court of Maryland that ICE re-arrested him without allowing him to express "fears of persecution and torture in that country."
The team is asking the court to ensure that Ábrego García "is not put on any flight to any country whatsoever, whether it's Uganda, South Sudan, what have you, unless and until he has had a full and fair trial in an immigration court as well as his full appeal rights," said Sandoval-Moshenberg.
It’s not clear what charges Abrego Garcia is facing, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg says, or where he will be detained.
Sandoval-Moshenberg says another federal lawsuit is being filed to challenge the planned deportation to Uganda, of any other third-country. pic.twitter.com/9YYKd0hOfG
— Mikenzie Frost (@MikenzieFrost) August 25, 2025
As Common Dreams reported, when Ábrego García was released from a jail Friday in Tennessee—where he'd been held on human smuggling charges since being returned to the US in June following his mistaken deportation to El Salvador—the administration informed his legal team that it may deport him once again to Uganda.
That threat was made when Ábrego García declined an offer to be sent to Costa Rica as part of a plea deal in which he would be required to plead guilty to human smuggling.
Another lawyer for Ábrego García, Sean Hecker, said Monday that "the government's campaign of retribution continues because Mr. Abrego refuses to be coerced into pleading guilty to a case that should never have been brought."
Ábrego García's ordeal has been at the center of outrage over the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda and President Donald Trump's $6 million deal with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, under which hundreds of migrants have been deported to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Ábrego García was initially sent to CECOT in March, and US Department of Justice officials acknowledged that his deportation had been the result of an administrative error. He was accused of being a member of the gang MS-13 based on a statement from an anonymous police informant, and a judge ruled in 2019 that he could not be deported to his home country of El Salvador due to concerns over torture and persecution there.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Monday said Ábrego García was being processed for his new deportation order, but did not say where the administration plans to send him. She repeated the Trump administration's unproven claims about the Maryland resident, calling him "an MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser, and child predator" and said he would not "terrorize American citizens any longer."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who visited Ábrego García when he was imprisoned in El Salvador and demanded his release, condemned Noem for continuing to "spread lies about his case."
"Instead of spewing unproven allegations on social media, [officials] need to put up or shut up in court," said Van Hollen.
"The federal courts and public outcry forced the administration to bring Ábrego García back to Maryland, but Trump's cronies continue to lie about the facts in his case and they are engaged in a malicious abuse of power as they threaten to deport him to Uganda—to block his chance to defend himself against the new charges they brought," Van Hollen said. "As I told Kilmar and his wife Jennifer, we will stay in this fight for justice and due process because if his rights are denied, the rights of everyone else are put at risk."
Sarah Mehta, deputy director of policy and government affairs at the ACLU, said Ábrego García's arrest on Monday put "the Trump administration's obsessive and petty cruelty... on full display" and condemned the "latest move to deport Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland father they admitted to wrongfully deporting to a torture prison, to a country with which he has no relationship."
"This vindictive behavior is not just about Mr. Ábrego García; this is once again the administration showing that it can weaponize the law to punish people standing up for their rights and make our immigrant neighbors afraid of being rapidly exiled, including to places where they may be persecuted," said Mehta.
The Times reported Monday that Ábrego García "expressed willingness to leave the United States to accept refugee status in Costa Rica" after initially rejecting the plea deal.
An order handed down by the chief federal judge in Maryland in May requires the government to give Ábrego García a two-day reprieve before being expelled from the country following the filing of the habeas corpus petition.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, suggested the administration has continued targeting Ábrego García simply because he and his legal team brought nationwide attention to the fact that officials had wrongly deported him and other migrants.
"The entire weight of the federal government has been brought against this man for one reason, and one reason alone," said Reichlin-Melnick. "He tried to get them to fix a mistake they admit they made."
Ábrego García acknowledged other families that have been impacted and separated by Trump's mass deportation policy before entering the ICE facility on Monday.
"To all of the families who have also suffered separations or who live under the constant threat of being separated," he said, "I want to tell you that even though this injustice is hurting us hard, we must not lose hope."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maryland Lawmaker Denied Access to Abrego García During El Salvador Visit
The Supreme Court ordered the White House to facilitate Kilmar Abrego García's return to the United States more than a month ago.
May 27, 2025
"If there is nothing to hide, cut the crap," said a Maryland congressman late Monday after being denied a visit with his constituent, Kilmar Abrego García, who is being held in a prison in El Salvador after being wrongly expelled by the Trump administration to the Central American country.
Rep. Glenn Ivey, a Democrat, said he had made contact with the Salvadoran ambassador before making the trip to El Salvador and had made a formal request to see Abrego García—more than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" the Maryland resident's return to the United States.
"We came here to visit him today, and now they're telling us we've got to go all the way back to San Salvador to get a permit," said Ivey. "That's ridiculous... They knew we were coming, they knew why we were coming, and they know we have the right to do this."
Abrego García, a Salvadoran national with no criminal record, entered the U.S. without authorization in 2011 and had been living with his wife and children and working as a sheet metal worker in Maryland.
He was one of more than 100 migrants who were swiftly expelled to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in March under a $6 million deal with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.
He was accused of being a member of the gang MS-13, which Abrego García's family has denied. The Trump administration based its actions on an accusation from an anonymous police informant who said in 2019 that Abrego García's Chicago Bulls cap was indicative of his gang membership after he was detained for loitering. That year, a judge ruled that Abrego García should not be deported to his home country because he had a credible fear of torture by a local gang.
The White House has spread misinformation about Abrego García, including an image that was edited to make it appear like his tattoos signified MS-13 membership.
Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said her repeated efforts to get the Trump administration to disclose information about Abrego García's case has been "an exercise in utter frustration."
Department of Justice lawyers told the judge that details about the case are protected under "state secrets" privileges.
Xinis called on the government to provide legal reasoning for invoking those privileges and said she would issue an official order.
Administration officials have alternately claimed they have no way of returning him to the U.S. after he was deported due to an "administrative error," and Bukele has said the same. But Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. questioned a Department of Justice lawyer earlier this month about President Donald Trump's claim that he could bring Abrego García back to the U.S. with a phone call.
Abrego García was initially sent to CECOT, which is notorious for its poor conditions and reports of torture and physical abuse, but just before U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) visited him in April, he was moved to a lower-security prison.
Ivey said Monday that he had planned to assess the conditions of the facility during his visit, noting the Democrats in Congress have not received information about how U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent to house Abrego García.
"We need to get that," Ivey said in a press briefing. "We've got the power in the purse. We've got a constitutional obligation to make sure that money is being used in the right way, but we can't figure that out if we don't even know how much is being spent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don’t Be Fooled: the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project Is a Corporate Land Grab
This project is a textbook case of environmental injustice. It would carve through preserved farmland and forests, pollute streams and wetlands, and destroy habitats for threatened species.
May 21, 2025
The name “Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project” is a masterclass in Orwellian branding. It sounds like public service—what it really delivers is environmental destruction, labor exploitation, and corporate profit at the public’s expense.
My name is Karyn Strickler, and my family farm lies directly in the path of this 70-mile transmission line. Located in Carroll County, Maryland, our farm has been in agricultural preservation for decades. My sister, her family, and my 95-year-old father live on the land. The third generation is now growing up here. Our roots stretch back to the early 1700s in America—and 500 years before that in Switzerland.
We preserved this land for farming. Not for it to be bulldozed by a private utility company.
The MPRP is part of a growing national trend where energy infrastructure is being redirected to power unregulated, fossil-fueled data centers—putting local communities and ecosystems at risk across the country, not just in Maryland.
The Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP) isn’t about homes or communities. It’s about servers—giant fossil fuel-powered data centers in Northern Virginia. And while these billion-dollar corporations get the power, Marylanders get the pollution, the grid drain, and the bill.
Public Service Enterprise Group couldn’t meet the labor standards required by New Jersey for a wind project. So they ran to Maryland—where wage protections are weak, enforcement is inconsistent, and union labor is often ignored. Meanwhile, construction jobs are temporary, low-wage, and often filled by undocumented workers with no protections.
This project is a textbook case of environmental injustice. It would carve through preserved farmland and forests, pollute streams and wetlands, and destroy habitats for the bog turtle and the Baltimore checkerspot—Maryland’s own state insect. These species are already threatened. MPRP could push them further toward extinction.
And let’s be clear: This isn’t about my family alone. There is widespread grassroots opposition across Carroll, Frederick, and Baltimore counties. We are farmers, homeowners, business owners, and residents who see this for what it is: a high-voltage land grab disguised as progress.
The MPRP is part of a growing national trend where energy infrastructure is being redirected to power unregulated, fossil-fueled data centers—putting local communities and ecosystems at risk across the country, not just in Maryland.
This is not reliability. It’s recklessness. It’s time Maryland lived up to its promises of equity, sustainability, and dignity for workers. The bulldozers are warming up—but so is the resistance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump White House Mocks Abrego Garcia—and Provides 'More Evidence of Contempt' of Court
"Whoever thought this was cute at the time may be less giddy when this becomes evidence of intent to disobey a court order," said one legal expert of a social media post from the White House.
Apr 18, 2025
The White House's public response on Friday to an image of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who the Trump administration sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador last month, was to mock the migrant and the U.S. senator who successfully urged Salvadoran President Nayim Bukele to allow a visit with him—and critics said officials may come to regret that decision.
"I suspect this is going to show up in a variety of court pleadings," said former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance, who is now a law professor. "Whoever thought this was cute at the time may be less giddy when this becomes evidence of intent to disobey a court order."
White Vance was among those who responded to a social media post from the White House's official account on the platform X, in which it displayed the New York Times cover story featuring an image of Abrego Garcia and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) at their meeting on Thursday.
The story headline read, "Senator Meets With Wrongly Deported Maryland Man in El Salvador"—but the White House crossed out the word "wrongly," replaced "Maryland Man" with "MS-13 Illegal Alien," and scrawled, "who's never coming back" on the article about the father and sheet metal worker.
The digital graffiti was shared with the White House's 1.6 million followers even though, as software engineer and writer Lakshya Jain said, "the White House admitted in court that they deported the wrong guy."
Journalist David Leavitt added that the White House had given a federal court "more evidence of contempt," two days after Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. warned that there was "probable cause... to find the government in criminal contempt"—punishable by fines or prison time.
Boasberg ordered the administration last month to turn around two planes that were carrying migrants to El Salvador to be imprisoned at Bukele's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) under a $6 million deal. The White House disobeyed the order.
The administration has also flouted the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling last week that found the White House must facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. Officials have admitted he was sent to El Salvador due to an "administrative error." Although officials including Vice President JD Vance have called him a "convicted" gang member and Bukele repeatedly called him a "terrorist" in the White House earlier this week, Abrego Garcia has not been convicted of any crimes. He was also protected by a 2019 court order which found he had a credible fear of persecution if he were deported to El Salvador.
Washington Post senior political reporter Aaron Blake said that by saying Abrego Garcia is "never coming back," the White House was "basically taunting" the Supreme Court.
Attorney Aaron Regunberg added that White House officials were "explicitly declaring they will violate a unanimous Supreme Court order," and reminded Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) of his earlier remarks that such defiance from President Donald Trump would trigger "extraordinary action."
"So... where the fuck are you?" asked Regunberg Schumer.
At a press conference following his return to the U.S., flanked by Abrego Garcia's wife, Van Hollen—who was widely praised this week for taking concrete action to advocate for his constituent—on Friday accused the Trump administration of "lying about this case from the beginning."
"They've been trying to change the subject from the beginning," said Van Hollen. "As I've said, and the courts have said—from the Supreme Court to the 4th Circuit, to the District Court—what this is about is adhering to the Constitution, to the right of due process. And that's why we say: 'Bring Kilmar home,' so he can be afforded his rights under the Constitution. That's what this is about."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Lawless': Trump DOJ Defies Supreme Court Order for Return of Man Sent to Salvadoran Prison
"I'm not asking for state secrets," said a federal judge as lawyers for the White House refused to provide information about Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Apr 11, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision on Thursday was clear: The Trump administration was ordered to "facilitate" the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with no criminal record who was among hundreds of migrants rounded up in recent weeks and sent to an El Salvador prison.
But lawyers for President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday insisted they needed more time to "review" the high court's ruling and refused to provide details on when and how they would ensure Abrego Garcia was returned to his family in Maryland.
Drew Ensign, one attorney representing the Trump administration, argued at a hearing Friday afternoon with U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland over the court-ordered requirement that the government "share what it can concerning the steps it has taken" to return Abrego Garcia.
The hearing had been previously scheduled before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling, and went ahead as planned despite the DOJ's request on Friday morning for Xinis to postpone it till next Wednesday.
"Defendants are unable to provide the information requested by the court on the impracticable deadline set by the court hours after the Supreme Court issued its order," wrote the DOJ lawyers in a filing on Friday morning, striking an aggressive tone similar to the one the government displayed in the hearing later.
Immigration attorney Eric Lee said the filing displayed "a lawless government."
Xinis responded to the request by giving the lawyers until 11:30 am—a two-hour extension of the previous deadline—to submit a written declaration of steps the administration is taking for Abrego Garcia, whom they have said was sent to El Salvador due to an "administrative error," claiming that his fate is out of the United States' control.
But she urged the lawyers to keep in mind that the "act of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was wholly illegal from the moment it happened."
At the hearing, she clashed further with Ensign.
The attorney said again that the administration is "not yet prepared to share" more information about Abrego Garcia.
"I'm not asking for state secrets," she replied, demanding "roughly a dozen times," according to The New York Times, that Ensign provide information about the man's exact whereabouts and plans for his return. "Is anyone moving with any kind of speed to get to the bottom of this so I can get an answer?"
Ensign confirmed that the government intends to comply with the Supreme Court's order before the hearing ended after less than half an hour. Xinis ordered the DOJ to provide daily updates about its progress in securing his release.
The White House and the Republican Party have attacked the judiciary numerous times in recent weeks, with calls to impeach judges who have ruled against Trump's agenda—including U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who issued a nationwide restraining order against the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel suspected gang members to El Salvador.
Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller is among the officials who have pushed the idea that federal judges, in demanding that Trump follow constitutional law, are interfering in "foreign affairs."
The Supreme Court included in its ruling a directive for Xinis to proceed with "due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs," leading Miller to suggest that the White House is still under no obligation to return Abrego Garcia.
"If the United States government is paying El Salvador to imprison people on its behalf," said Andrea R. Flores, vice president of FWD.us, "there should be absolutely no 'foreign affairs' reason that they cannot ask their contractor, El Salvador, to return Kilmer Abrego Garcia immediately."
Note: This article has been corrected to reflect the Supreme Court's order for the U.S. to "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outcry as White House Admits to Sending Maryland Man to El Salvador Prison 'In Error'
"If Trump can disappear Abrego Garcia, he can disappear you," warned one advocate. "This is why due process matters. Without it, America slides into dictatorship."
Apr 01, 2025
"This is the precedent Trump needs to send you to a concentration camp," said one advocate for due process rights as President Donald Trump's administration claimed it had made an "administrative error" in sending a Maryland father to a prison in his home country of El Salvador—leaving the federal government with no way of bringing him back to his children and wife, a U.S. citizen.
In a court filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, an acting field office director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Robert L. Cerna, told Judge Paula Xinis that the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on March 15 "was in error." Abrego Garcia was one of hundreds of people rounded up by the Trump administration and sent to a "Terrorism Confinement Center" in El Salvador, with the White House invoking the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II and claiming many were members of gangs including MS-13 and Tren de Aragua.
Cerna's filing reveals the result of a mass expulsion operation in which hundreds of people were afforded no due process rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution: At least one person with legal protected status in the United States who was not convicted of a crime is now imprisoned in a country where a U.S. federal court had previously found he could face persecution and torture.
As Joshua Eakle of Project Liberal warned, Abrego Garcia's detention and the administration's claim that it can do nothing to help him also creates precedent for Trump to do the same to anyone else it sees fit to target.
"This is how it starts. You must pay attention," said Eakle. "If Trump can disappear Abrego Garcia, he can disappear you. If Trump can strip his rights with no accountability, he can do it to anyone. This is why due process matters. Without it, America slides into dictatorship."
As the news spread of Abrego Garcia's mistaken expulsion, Vice President JD Vance "smeared him as a 'convicted gang member,'" claiming to cite the court filing from Monday, and accused podcast host Jon Favreau of having sympathy for "gang members getting deported while ignoring citizens they victimize."
Cerna's filing states that Abrego Garcia was denied bond in 2019 because "the evidence show[ed] that he is a verified member of [Mara Salvatrucha] ('MS-13')]" and therefore posed a danger to the community." As Kyle Cheney wrote at Politico, the accusation was "sharply contested" by Abrego Garcia and "credited to information gleaned from a confidential informant."
"That's not a conviction," said Cheney.
The 2019 court filing regarding the bond denial notes that Abrego Garcia "has no criminal conviction" and that the government erroneously stated at the time that Abrego Garcia was "detained in connection to a murder investigation."
Further, noted Cheney, the court at the time found that Abrego Garcia was likely a member of MS-13, but that he had a credible fear of persecution in his home country of El Salvador and should not be deported there—or expelled via an operation like Trump's mass expulsion campaign, in which those sent overseas have not been afforded due process.
Vance's claim that Abrego Garcia is a "convicted gang member" was "a lie," said Krystal Ball of the online news show "Breaking Points."
"But JD's comment reveals his deportation was not really a 'mistake,'" she said. "They put whoever they could round up on those planes without regard for guilt, innocence, immigration status, or court orders. If this man can be permanently disappeared into a foreign dungeon, anyone can."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council said it was "shocking that the vice president of the United States would so callously, and so falsely, accuse someone of being a convicted gang member. It's especially bad when his own administration just admitted to illegally deporting that person due to 'administrative error.'"
Trump's Justice Department is now urging Xinis to reject a petition filed by Abrego Garcia's attorneys to secure his return to the U.S., saying that since the Maryland resident is now in custody in his home country, the administration and the court system can't force El Salvador to return him.
"People should go to prison over this," said Paul Blest, a reporter for More Perfect Union.
Antonio De Loera-Brust, communications director for United Farm Workers, suggested the Trump administration is now refusing to push for Abrego Garcia or other potentially innocent people who have been expelled from the U.S. "because then they will be able to speak for themselves and the full extent of this atrocity will become clear."
Shannon Watts, founder of the gun violence prevention group Moms Demand Action, called on the Democratic Party to ensure the administration can't ignore the demand for Abrego Garcia's release.
"I don't care what the polls say about immigration, this is a legal assault on the Constitution and humanity," said Watts. "Democratic leaders must publicly pressure the Trump administration to rescue Kilmar Abrego Garcia."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy