💥 SHOCKING BREAKDOWN: TRUMP DOJ CAUGHT MISLEADING FEDERAL COURT WITH A BLATANT LIE — BOMBSHELL REPORTING IGNITES A POLITICAL–LEGAL FIRESTORM ON LIVE AIR ⚡

Washington — A newly surfaced dispute between U.S. officials and the government of Costa Rica has injected fresh uncertainty into the federal prosecution and immigration proceedings involving Kilmar Rego Garcia, a Maryland resident whose case has drawn attention for more than a year.

According to recent reporting by The Washington Post and new filings in federal court, attorneys for Mr. Garcia — also known in court records as Kilmar Abrego Garcia — now allege that U.S. officials repeatedly misrepresented Costa Rica’s willingness to receive him, raising broader questions about federal conduct in both his criminal case and his immigration proceedings.

The development comes after months of legal maneuvering that began in March, when Garcia was placed on a flight to El Salvador along with hundreds of other detainees, despite a court order temporarily blocking his removal to that country over his stated fear of persecution. After spending weeks in a high-security Salvadoran detention facility, he was returned to the United States only after multiple court orders, including one from the U.S. Supreme Court, required his return.

Instead of being reunited with his family in Maryland, Garcia was brought back to face federal charges accusing him of facilitating the smuggling of migrants. He won pretrial release twice, but after briefly reconnecting with his family, he was ordered to report to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Baltimore. He has remained in federal immigration detention since.

For much of this period, Garcia and his legal team have said he is willing to be deported to Costa Rica, a Spanish-speaking country where he has prior connections. But U.S. officials insisted for months that Costa Rica had declined to accept him, and instead pursued a series of “third-country” deportation options — first Uganda, then Eswatini, later Ghana, and most recently Liberia. Several of these nations, according to court filings, had not formally agreed to accept him.

In filings submitted in federal court this week, Garcia’s attorneys wrote that recently released information “makes crystal clear that the government is willing to mislead the courts and defy court orders… all in service of punishing Mr. Abrego.” The attorneys argued that the pattern of shifting deportation destinations suggests “vindictiveness” and urged the court to authorize discovery into the reasoning of senior officials.

The filings cite a Washington Post report in which Costa Rica’s security minister, Mario Zamora Cordero, said he informed the U.S. Embassy in San José in August that Costa Rica was willing to accept Garcia on humanitarian grounds and would grant him legal residency. “That position… remains valid and unchanged,” Zamora told the newspaper.

The statements appear to contradict testimony given in federal court by John Cantu, a senior ICE official, who said Costa Rica had closed the door to accepting Garcia. Those discrepancies are now at the center of a forthcoming evidentiary hearing in a separate motion alleging vindictive prosecution.

The Justice Department, in earlier proceedings, had offered Garcia a plea agreement that would have allowed deportation to Costa Rica after he served a sentence. Garcia declined, choosing instead to proceed to trial and pursue pretrial release — a decision his lawyers say prompted a shift in the government’s approach.

In court documents, Garcia’s attorneys argue that the government’s insistence on deporting him to far-off countries where he has no ties “is plain evidence that the government wants nothing more than to punish Mr. Abrego for exposing its unlawful conduct.” They argue that the government’s rationale for refusing Costa Rica “rests on falsehoods” and that the pattern of shifting explanations suggests deeper animus driving the prosecution.

Federal prosecutors have rejected those claims, arguing that the criminal case arose from a legitimate investigation. In a televised interview last year, former Trump administration official Todd Blanche — then a deputy attorney general — stated that federal authorities began reviewing Garcia’s case after a judge and members of Congress questioned the circumstances of his deportation to El Salvador.

Garcia’s attorneys have subpoenaed Blanche to testify at the December hearing. The Justice Department is seeking to quash the subpoena, setting the stage for a legal clash that could shape the future of the case.

The evidentiary hearing, scheduled before U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in early December, is itself significant. Such hearings on claims of vindictive prosecution are uncommon, and their authorization signals that a judge has determined the defense has presented sufficient evidence to warrant further inquiry. If the court finds Garcia was targeted for improper reasons, the prosecution could be dismissed.

Beyond the criminal case, the dispute over deportation destinations continues to raise broader questions about immigration policy, especially the federal government’s use of third-country removals and the level of transparency expected in communicating with courts.

For now, Garcia remains in detention as both cases move ahead. The competing accounts — from federal officials, immigration authorities, foreign governments, and Garcia’s lawyers — are expected to converge in the December proceedings, where a federal judge will determine whether the actions taken against him were routine enforcement or something far more extraordinary.