After nearly a decade of legal wrangling, appeals, and political controversy, the U.S. Department of Justice has renewed its push to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who has been at the center of one of Maryland’s most drawn-out immigration cases.

In a filing submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis on Friday, federal prosecutors under President Donald Trump’s administration urged the court to authorize the long-delayed deportation, asserting that all legal and procedural barriers preventing Abrego Garcia’s removal have been lifted.

The government’s request signals a major step in Trump’s broader immigration enforcement strategy — one that aims to reassert federal authority over deportation cases that have languished for years under what many conservatives consider a broken and overly lenient immigration system.

A Case Years in the Making

Abrego Garcia, who was originally ordered deported years ago, first entered the United States illegally through the southern border. He was deported to El Salvador but reportedly returned in violation of that order. After reentering the U.S., he claimed asylum, alleging that he faced danger if sent back to his home region.

However, according to court documents, the Justice Department has now determined that Abrego Garcia has failed to provide credible evidence that he would face persecution if deported — and that his repeated appeals are nothing more than an attempt to delay removal.

“Petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred multiple times over and fail on the merits in any event,” the DOJ wrote in its latest filing. “This Court should therefore dissolve its preliminary injunction and permit the government to remove Petitioner to Liberia.”

The government’s reference to Liberia — rather than El Salvador — stems from a complex legal arrangement that allows deportation to a third-party country willing to receive individuals when return to their homeland is not possible or is diplomatically complicated.

For Trump officials, that move represents a broader strategy: no more indefinite stays for individuals with final deportation orders.

The Administration’s Broader Immigration Message

Trump’s renewed focus on enforcement has made clear that his administration intends to prioritize action over rhetoric. Deporting individuals like Abrego Garcia, who have exhausted all appeals, serves as a visible demonstration of that commitment.

The push to complete the deportation also carries symbolic weight.

For years, critics of U.S. immigration policy have accused previous administrations — both Republican and Democrat — of being too slow to execute deportation orders, allowing repeat border crossers or individuals with criminal records to remain in the country indefinitely while cases wind through the courts.

Under Trump’s leadership, the Justice Department is signaling that those days are over.

“By clearing final hurdles, the DOJ is showing it intends to stop stalling and start removing people — not just relocating them or dragging out asylum claims for years,” one senior immigration official told reporters on background.

The official emphasized that immigration enforcement is not only about security but about restoring trust in the legal system.

“When American citizens see individuals defy immigration orders for years while taxpayers foot the bill, it undermines confidence in the system. Enforcement is a matter of fairness as much as law,” the official added.

Political and Public Implications

For the Trump administration and the Republican Party, the timing of this deportation case is politically significant. With the 2028 election cycle already stirring, the White House has framed this and similar cases as proof that the administration delivers on promises to secure the border and uphold immigration law.

Political analysts note that Trump’s strategy goes beyond individual deportations — it’s about shifting public perception.

“This case is a microcosm of what Trump’s immigration policy is designed to convey,” said political strategist Mark Jensen, who has advised multiple Republican campaigns. “It’s not just about sending one man home. It’s about showing that the federal government can act decisively, even when bureaucratic or activist obstacles stand in the way.”

Jensen said this kind of legal win provides “political ammunition” for Trump and congressional Republicans heading into upcoming campaigns.

“It reinforces the idea that Republicans don’t just talk tough on immigration — they act. And that’s a powerful contrast to Democrats, who have struggled to balance compassion with enforcement,” he added.

A Divisive Symbol in the Immigration Debate

Abrego Garcia’s case has become a lightning rod for broader discussions about immigration reform, asylum procedures, and executive authority.

To critics of Trump’s immigration policies, the administration’s focus on high-profile deportations represents a harsh and politically motivated approach that targets vulnerable individuals rather than systemic issues.

Immigration advocacy groups have argued that deporting Abrego Garcia to Liberia — a country he has no known connection to — violates international human rights norms and sets a dangerous precedent for “third-party” deportations.

“Sending a person to a country they’ve never lived in is effectively exile,” said Maria Gonzalez, director of the advocacy group Justice for Migrants. “It may satisfy a political narrative, but it raises serious humanitarian and legal questions.”

But supporters of the administration counter that the rule of law must prevail.

“This man has had his day in court — in fact, he’s had years of them,” said Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a vocal supporter of the administration’s immigration agenda. “At some point, the law has to mean something. If you enter the country illegally, get deported, then sneak back in, there have to be consequences.”

Deportation to Liberia: A Legal Workaround

The decision to deport Abrego Garcia to Liberia rather than El Salvador is unusual but not unprecedented. U.S. immigration law allows deportation to a third country that agrees to accept the individual if returning them to their home nation is not possible.

Legal experts say the move reflects a tougher, more flexible enforcement approach — one that prioritizes removal over bureaucratic delays.

“It’s an aggressive but lawful strategy,” said Dr. Caroline Weiss, a professor of immigration law at Georgetown University. “In cases where deportation has been delayed because of disputes over the receiving country, the U.S. can lawfully send the individual elsewhere — as long as that country consents.”

Weiss noted that the use of third-country deportations remains rare, but it sends a clear message: “The U.S. government is determined to ensure that deportation orders are carried out, even if it requires unconventional means.”

Public Opinion and Political Fallout

Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support stronger border security and quicker enforcement of deportation orders, especially for individuals with prior deportations or criminal convictions.

The Abrego Garcia case, though relatively small in scale, has become symbolic of a system that many believe is too lenient.

In Maryland, reactions have been mixed. Immigration advocates have organized local demonstrations calling for leniency, while others — including many working-class residents — have expressed frustration over what they see as endless delays in enforcing the law.

“I came here legally,” said Carlos Mendoza, a restaurant owner in Baltimore. “It took me years and thousands of dollars. If someone keeps breaking the law and still stays, it’s unfair to people who followed the rules.”

Restoring Public Trust

The Justice Department’s move to finalize the deportation comes amid a broader campaign by the Trump administration to restore confidence in immigration institutions. Officials argue that each successful deportation reinforces the principle that immigration laws are not optional.

“Immigration enforcement is ultimately about fairness,” said Acting DHS Secretary Robert Taylor during a recent press briefing. “When people see the law applied evenly and consistently, public trust grows. When they see endless appeals and loopholes, trust erodes.”

For the administration, completing Abrego Garcia’s deportation would be more than just another immigration case — it would serve as a tangible example of the government’s commitment to upholding its own rulings.

What Comes Next

Judge Xinis is expected to rule soon on the DOJ’s request to lift the injunction preventing Abrego Garcia’s removal. If approved, deportation proceedings could move forward within weeks.

While legal challenges from advocacy groups are expected, officials inside the Trump administration remain confident that this time, the removal will stick.

“The difference now is that there’s no ambiguity,” one senior DHS source said. “Every box has been checked, every legal appeal exhausted. The process is over. It’s time for enforcement.”

Conclusion

After years of back-and-forth court battles, the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia appears to be nearing its end. For supporters of strict immigration enforcement, his deportation would represent a long-overdue victory for the rule of law. For critics, it highlights what they see as the administration’s increasingly hardline and politically motivated approach.

Either way, the case underscores a central truth of the modern immigration debate: in a system often bogged down by delay, decisive action — even controversial action — speaks louder than words.

As the Trump administration continues to press forward, one message rings clear: America’s immigration laws will be enforced, even when it’s politically inconvenient to do so.