The Department of Homeland Security says it is preparing “final necessary arrangements” to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and officials indicate the removal could happen “as soon as Oct. 31” after Liberia agreed to accept third-country individuals, according to a recent court filing and public filings reviewed this week.
The Trump administration’s DHS has moved through several potential destinations for Abrego Garcia as his legal team contested repatriation to his native El Salvador, arguing he would face danger in many countries. ICE and DHS officials have pushed back, saying the applicant has raised claims of fear in an unusually large list of nations, and that diplomatic assurances and protections make Liberia a feasible option.
Earlier in the process, the government explored sending Abrego Garcia back to El Salvador, then considered Uganda and Eswatini, and even discussed Ghana in filings. Those possibilities provoked repeated objections from his attorneys, who maintain he would be unsafe or mistreated in multiple places and demand alternative pathways such as refugee resettlement elsewhere.
It turns out that Uganda and El Salvador aren’t the only countries on the planet where Abrego Garcia allegedly fears for his safety, according to a document obtained by Fox News’ Bill Melugin.
Melugin broke the story on his X account, sharing an email he says that ICE sent through Abrego Garcia’s lawyers to the illegal alien on Friday afternoon. In the email, the Trump administration appears to be losing patience with the excuses.
ICE writes that “[t]he claim of fear is hard to take seriously, especially given that you have claimed (through your attorneys) that you fear persecution or torture in at least 22 countries.”
In September ICE indicated Eswatini as a possible destination, and court records show the agency has pursued options methodically while responding to repeated legal challenges. A federal judge recently denied a motion that would have reopened Abrego Garcia’s immigration case, a decision that left removal options open to the government.
The administration has relied on diplomatic assurances and on-the-ground evaluations to justify Liberia as a destination. DHS told the court that Liberia has provided diplomatic assurances regarding treatment of third-country individuals removed from the United States and that both nations are working out the necessary logistics to carry out the removal.
In its filing, DHS highlighted several points to argue Liberia is an appropriate destination, including the country’s democratic governance and legal protections. The department emphasized language and human-rights commitments and framed Liberia as a cooperative partner, arguing those facts undermine claims that Abrego Garcia would face persecution or torture there.
A Friday court filing from the Department of Homeland Security notes that “Liberia is a thriving democracy and one of the United States’s closest partners on the African continent.” Its national language is English; its constitution “provides robust protections for human rights;” and Liberia is “committed to the humane treatment of refugees,” the filing reads. It concludes that Abrego Garcia could be deported as soon as Oct. 31.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers called the planned removal “punitive, cruel, and unconstitutional,” and they urged that Costa Rica accept him as a refugee instead. Their public statement argued that after failed attempts with other countries, deporting him to Liberia — a place with no personal ties and far from his family in Maryland — would be unduly harsh.
“After failed attempts with Uganda, Eswatini, and Ghana, ICE now seeks to deport our client, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to Liberia, a country with which he has no connection, thousands of miles from his family and home in Maryland.
“Costa Rica stands ready to accept him as a refugee, a viable and lawful option. Yet the government has chosen a course calculated to inflict maximum hardship. These actions are punitive, cruel, and unconstitutional.”
From a Republican perspective, enforcement and the integrity of immigration laws matter. The administration and its agencies have been tasked with carrying out removal orders where legal processes permit, and they argue that relying on partner countries and documented assurances is a practical way to uphold those orders while addressing humanitarian concerns.
The case raises questions about how far claimants can push fear-based exceptions and what counts as credible evidence of risk in third countries. It also highlights the diplomatic work behind removals: securing agreements, dealing with logistics across continents, and balancing legal obligations with rights protections.
DHS has indicated it is prepared to move forward quickly, and that timeline has prompted urgent filings and public statements from the defense team. The next steps will play out in court filings and administrative actions as both sides press their respective claims and defenses about safety, law, and policy.
Add comment