• President Trump admits he could facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.
• Despite admitting the ability to act, he cites gang affiliation as a reason for not attempting to return him.
• Garcia was wrongfully deported despite a court order prohibiting his removal to El Salvador.
• Legal experts warn that Trump's refusal to act may indicate a violation of judicial authority.
• The Supreme Court has mandated that the administration facilitate Garcia's return.

In a recent interview, President Donald Trump stated that he "could" facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, but he emphasized that he would not do so, citing alleged gang affiliations. Trump's comments came during an ABC News interview where he explained, "If he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that. But he's not," continuing to refer to Abrego Garcia as linked to the MS-13 gang, a claim disputed by the man's legal team and family, according to ABC News and The New York Times.

Garcia, who entered the U.S. illegally in 2011 and was living under a protective order, was deported in March despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring his removal due to fears of persecution by gangs in El Salvador. In response to questions about complying with the court's order, Trump's administration has maintained that the decision to return Garcia lies with El Salvador's government, which has so far rejected requests for his return, as detailed by HuffPost and The New York Times.

Following Trump's remarks, legal experts suggest that his acknowledgment of having the power to intervene yet declining to do so could be seen as a willful defiance of judicial authority. This raises the stakes as courts evaluate the administration's adherence to the Supreme Court's directive to "facilitate" Garcia's return, a point emphasized by Reuters and Newsweek.

His refusal to act, despite admitting he could, has drawn criticism regarding the due process rights of Garcia, with lawmakers contending that such decisions undermine the legal process's integrity. Subsequently, various court officials continue to scrutinize the case as the administration faces mounting pressure from both the judiciary and immigrant advocacy groups for compliance with established legal protections, reports HuffPost and AA.