Senator Claims Trump Administration Is Paying El Salvador to Keep Abrego Garcia Detained in Maximum Security Prison

A diplomatic visit to El Salvador by Senator Chris Van Hollen has reignited international debate over the prolonged detention of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was deported from the United States under disputed circumstances.

Van Hollen revealed that during his meeting with El Salvador’s Vice President Félix Ulloa, he was told that the Trump administration is financially compensating the Salvadoran government to continue holding Garcia in a maximum-security prison designed for terrorists.

Abrego Garcia, who had been living legally in the United States and was a resident of Maryland, was deported by U.S. authorities in what was later acknowledged as an administrative mistake.

Despite court rulings and the absence of any criminal convictions or substantiated gang affiliations, he remains incarcerated in the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, a facility created for individuals associated with terrorism and organized crime.

According to Senator Van Hollen, who visited El Salvador on April 16 to investigate Garcia’s continued imprisonment, Vice President Ulloa directly stated that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador to ensure Garcia remains at CECOT. “His answer was that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador to keep him at CECOT,” Van Hollen said.

The senator’s inquiry into the case has sparked concern among human rights advocates and members of the Salvadoran-American community. Garcia’s deportation had already been controversial, as his removal occurred despite his legal status and a lack of any formal charges linking him to criminal activity.

The U.S. government’s characterization of Garcia as affiliated with MS-13, one of Central America’s most feared gangs, has never been supported by court evidence in either country.

Following his removal from the United States, Garcia was transported to El Salvador, where he was immediately detained. El Salvadoran authorities have held him at CECOT without trial or public charges, a move that critics argue violates international human rights standards and undermines due process.

Van Hollen sought to personally meet with Garcia during his diplomatic mission, but officials denied his request, citing the need for advanced approval and coordination with the United States Embassy. The senator now plans to formally ask the embassy to intervene and pursue communication with Garcia, though it remains uncertain whether such a request will be honored.

The lack of access to Garcia has raised further concerns about the transparency of his detention and the legal basis for his continued imprisonment. Despite pressure from U.S. courts and advocacy groups, President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has reportedly informed former President Trump that he has no intention of releasing Garcia or returning him to the United States.

The Department of Justice has indicated that should Garcia be returned to the U.S., he would face detention once again and would likely be subject to another deportation proceeding. This position appears to directly conflict with legal decisions calling for his release and casts doubt on whether Garcia will receive a fair review of his case.

Observers have drawn attention to the extraordinary nature of the arrangement, particularly the suggestion that a former U.S. administration is offering financial incentives to a foreign government in exchange for the detention of an individual whose case lacks clear legal grounding. If substantiated, this could raise legal and ethical questions about the use of U.S. funds and the extent of executive influence on foreign detention practices.

Human rights organizations are already voicing alarm. Garcia’s placement in CECOT—a facility known for housing dangerous criminals, including gang leaders and alleged terrorists—has been described as both excessive and punitive, especially in light of his lack of conviction.

CECOT is regarded as one of the most secure and restrictive detention centers in Latin America, and concerns about inmate treatment and due process are widespread.

Garcia’s family in Maryland has remained largely out of the spotlight but is reportedly in contact with legal advocates working on his behalf. They continue to assert his innocence and express hope that diplomatic and legal pressure will lead to his release or, at the very least, a reevaluation of his case under international legal standards.

For Senator Van Hollen, the situation reflects a larger breakdown in the principles that guide American immigration and foreign policy. He noted that if Garcia, a man who has not been convicted of any crimes and who was deported in error, can be held indefinitely under such circumstances, the broader implications for lawful immigrants and international human rights are troubling.

“Public trust in our immigration and justice systems is undermined when we allow administrative errors to destroy lives,” Van Hollen said during a press briefing following his trip. “What’s even more alarming is the suggestion that we may be outsourcing injustice—paying other governments to do what would be illegal or unethical here at home.”

The senator’s comments add to mounting scrutiny of the Trump administration’s immigration practices, many of which drew criticism during his presidency for being overly aggressive and dismissive of legal norms.

This new revelation—if verified—would highlight a further escalation, where deportation is not the end of the legal process but the beginning of indefinite detention in foreign jurisdictions.

Diplomatic experts say the situation could evolve into a broader dispute between the U.S. and El Salvador, especially if Biden administration officials or members of Congress begin applying formal pressure. The lack of cooperation between the Salvadoran government and U.S. legal authorities has already raised red flags, particularly as the two countries continue to collaborate on economic, security, and immigration issues.

The Biden administration has yet to comment publicly on the matter. However, some officials within the Department of State are reportedly monitoring the situation closely. If further investigation confirms financial arrangements behind Garcia’s detention, there may be renewed calls for congressional hearings or an inspector general review into how such agreements were reached and whether they violated U.S. law or international treaties.

Meanwhile, Garcia remains locked in a prison built to contain violent criminals, despite having never been formally charged or convicted of any related offense. Advocacy groups are calling on both governments to resolve the situation swiftly, arguing that Garcia’s continued imprisonment represents a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of international cooperation mechanisms.

Legal scholars warn that such arrangements, if replicated or allowed to stand unchallenged, could normalize a practice where political expediency outweighs individual rights. They stress the importance of accountability and transparency in all aspects of immigration enforcement and international detention.

For now, Garcia’s fate hangs in diplomatic limbo. With no clear timeline for a legal review, and mounting questions about the role of financial agreements in determining his detention, pressure continues to build on lawmakers, diplomats, and human rights advocates to intervene.

As the case continues to unfold, it is likely to serve as a focal point in ongoing discussions about immigration reform, foreign policy accountability, and the rights of individuals caught between the legal systems of two nations.