In a combative appearance on ABC’s “This Week”, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) made it crystal clear: his high-profile trip to El Salvador wasn’t a mission to exonerate Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the deported illegal immigrant at the center of an intensifying political firestorm — it was, in his words, a mission to defend due process.
Under scrutiny from host Jonathan Karl, Van Hollen pushed back against accusations from President Trump and Republican leaders that he was standing with a suspected MS-13 gang member and accused domestic abuser. Van Hollen’s response? Not so fast.
“I am not defending the man. I’m defending the rights of this man to due process,” Van Hollen said, arguing that constitutional protections don’t vanish because someone is accused of wrongdoing — even for undocumented immigrants.
And he wasn’t done.
In a pointed rebuke of the Trump administration’s public campaign against Abrego Garcia, Van Hollen took aim at the court of public opinion and demanded that any serious evidence be brought to the actual courts, not splashed across social media feeds.
“Judge Xinis, who’s the district court judge in this case, said… they put no evidence linking Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or to any other terrorist activity,” Van Hollen stated. “So Mr. President and Republicans… put your facts in court. Don’t put everything out on social media.”
The comments come amid a rising tide of criticism aimed at Van Hollen and other Democrats who traveled to El Salvador after Abrego Garcia’s deportation. Critics have labeled the trip as tone-deaf, citing not only the allegations of gang affiliation, but also a 2021 protective order filed by Abrego Garcia’s wife. Yet, as Van Hollen pointed out, she is now asking for his return.
The exchange wasn’t just about one man — it was about the broader battle over the rule of law in an era where immigration enforcement, border security, and executive authority are colliding head-on with civil liberties.
“If we take [due process] away from him, we jeopardize it for everybody else,” Van Hollen warned.
Even Karl, pressing the senator on the discomfort of standing up for someone with a “questionable record,” acknowledged the constitutional truth: “Even if he is a gang member, that doesn’t mean you don’t have rights.”
Van Hollen’s response was immediate:
“Exactly. But again, the place to litigate that is in the courts.”
